---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 14, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 249




                            Headlines

ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in TRT Class Action in Early Stages
ALLERGAN PLC: Still Faces Sales Representatives Collective Action
ALLERGAN PLC: Still Faces 1,740 Benicar(R) Claims
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Dinaples" Suit in W.D. Pa.
AMEDISYS INC: M.D. La. Securities Class Action Underway

AMEDISYS INC: N.D. Ill. Court Approves Accord in Employee Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Touche" Class Action Over Defective Airbag
ARAMARK BUSINESS: "Knapp" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
ASHLEY SERVICES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Australia
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Settlement Approval Bid to Be Re-Filed

BANK OF THE OZARKS: Muzingo Now a Class Member in "Walker" Suit
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Bid
CALIFORNIA: Forest Service May Face Gender Bias Class Action
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Feb. 23 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
CATALINA RESTAURNANT: "Farrar" Suit Transferred to Central Calif.

CENTURYLINK INC: Fulghum & Abbott Case Settlement Still Pending
CFS2 INC: Faces "Gutman" Suit in Eastern District of New York
CHICAGO, IL: To Complete Retiree Health Care Program Phaseout
CHICK-FIL-A: Faces "West" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COLONIAL FREIGHT: "Davis" Labor Suit Transferred to D. Tenn

COMCAST CORP: Dispute Over Counsel Fee Allocation Goes to Trial
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Class Certification Bid in "Strauch" Underway
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
CONVERGYS CORP: Has Made Final Payment in "Wheelock" Settlement
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Settles FDCPA Class Action for $200,000

CUMULUS MEDIA: ABS Pre-1972 Recordings Suit Remains Pending
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facility
DEFENDERS INC: Motion to Remand Case to N.J. Super. Ct. Denied
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in "Weinstat" Case Still Ongoing
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Motion

DENVER, CO: Disability Awareness Groups File Class Action
DETREX CORP: Faces "Arnold" Suit in Ohio Over Property Damages
DEVON ENERGY: "Grellner" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to E.D. Okla.
DJM ADVISORY: Must Defend JWD Auto's Suit Over Fax Spam
EL AL: Pilot Strike Ends Following Agreement Amid Class Action

EL POLLO: Reached Settlement of Orange County, Calif. Class Suit
EL POLLO: Turocy & Huston Actions Consolidated, Remain Pending
ENGINEERED PRODUCTS: Imperial Zinc's Claims Against EFR Dismissed
FERGUSON, MO: "Fant" Suit Over Traffic Offense May Proceed
FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge RAM 1500 EcoDiesel Owner Files Class Action

FIRST BANCSHARES: Lifshitz & Miller Law Firm Files Class Action
FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces 179 Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Actions
FRESH & EASY: Court Invalidates Employer's Arbitration Agreement
FUNDAMENTAL LABOR: Faces "Tonge" Suit in Eastern District of Pa.
HANOVER INSURANCE: Summary Judgment Bid Stayed Pending Discovery

HERTZ CORPORATION: "Gale" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
HOME FAMILY: "Atakhanova" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
HOMEALITY LLC: "Kilpatrick" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA
HONEYWELL INT'L: Faces Suit Over Chemical Leak at Geismar Plant
INSTACART: Group of Workers Files Wage Class Action

INTELIQUENT: Law Firm Investigates Potential Fiduciary Breach
JACKSON HEWITT: Court Sends "Hollingsworth" Suit to Arbitration
JAY PEAK: Investors Seek Financial Records of Owner's Children
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Class Suits Transferred to New Jersey Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Contact Lens Class Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit by Two Third-Party Payors Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: OCD's Motion for Summary Judgment Underway
JOS. A. BANK: Plaintiff Slapped with $40,000 Sanction
KAHOOTS INC: Pizzaro Sues Over Disability Discrimination
LA PIZZA: Faces "Zarate" Suit Over Failure to Provide Meal Break

LANNETT COMPANY: Defendant in 19 Digoxin Price-Fixing Suits
LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: 6th Cir. Sends "Mason" Suit to State Court
LOYALTYONE: Cancels Air Miles Rewards Expiry Policy Amid Suit
M&T BANK: Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited Discovery Pending
MADISON COUNTY, IL: RLI Dropped as Defendant in Bid Rigging Suit

MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Chemo Survivors Call Settlement Insulting
MARS PETCARE: Moore, et al. File Suit Over Prescription Pet Food
MARSHALL SQUARE: Residents' Property Damage Cases Resolved
MASSACHUSETTS: Troopers File Female, Minority Discrimination Suit
MDL 1486: ePlus Received $0.4-Mil. Payment From DRAM Class Action

MDL 1674: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
MEDICREDIT INC: Portsmouth Regional's Dismissal Bid Denied
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
METAL SYSTEMS: "Flecha" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
MISSISSIPPI: Fed. Gov't Opposes Combining Mental Health Suits

MKS INSTRUMENTS: Complaint in Newport Shareholder Suit Amended
MOCTEZUMA MUFFLERS: "Perez" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Act
MONSTER CHEF: "Wolf" Suit in Fla. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Motion for Rehearing En Banc Denied
NEW HAWAII: Settles 2013 Bronx Hepatitis A Class Action

NEW MIAMI, OH: Speeders Want Judge to Garnish Village's Funds
NORTHERN MARIANA: Submits Settlement Fund Asset Agreement
OCEAN POWER: $3 Million Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
OCEANFIRST FINANCIAL: Files Merger Info Due to "Garfield" Suit
OREGON: Tillamook County to Join Class Action Over Timber Harvest

PETROQUEST ENERGY: QIBs Lawsuit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
PETROQUEST ENERGY: Unit Named as Defendant in Hughes County Suit
PETROQUEST ENERGY: Unit Named as Defendant in Oklahoma Suit
PHC INC: Maz Partners' Bid to Modify Class Cert. Order Denied
PHELAN HALLINAN: Bid to Dismiss or Stay "Borg" Suit Denied

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Defends Suits Related to Line 901 Oil Spill
PNC FINANCIAL: Opposed Bid to Amend "White" Class Suit
POOLCORP: Averts Antitrust Class Action After Plaintiffs' Appeal
PRESTIGE DELIVERY: "Watson" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. Pa.

PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Defending Against Suit Over CIBC Merger
QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
QUEENSLAND, AU: Some Palm Island Riot Discrimination Claims Ok'd
RAYONIER INC: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase
REVLON INC: Awaits Filing of 2nd Consolidated Amended Suit

SAMSUNG: Korean Note 7 Users Won't Get Additional Compensation
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Miller" Suit Over Chromebooks Dismissed
SANTA MONICA, CA: "Rosenblatt" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
SESA FLEET: "Faragoza" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SLATER & GORDON: Anchorage Capital Buys Slice of Debt Amid Suit

SOLARCTY CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied
SOUTH STATE CORP: Plaintiff Withdraws Merger Class Suit
SOUTHERN COPPER: Discovery Underway in Lacey-Siegried Class Suit
STAPLES INC: Faces "Torczyner" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
STEEL & TUBE: Commerce Commission to Sue Over Substandard Mesh

SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Suit Remains Pending in Georgia
SUNTRUST BANKS: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in 401(k) Plan Action
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Class Actions
SUNTRUST BANKS: Feb. 6 Final Hearing in "Felix" Class Suit
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Appeal by Settlement Objectors Pending

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss TelexFree Action Pending
TEMPSNOW EMPLOYMENT: Murdock-Alexander's Amended Complaint Tossed
TOTAL SYSTEM: CPAY Still Defends "Heidarpour" Suit in M.D. Ga.
TOTAL SYSTEM: Class Action Discovery Remains Stayed
TRUSTMARK CORP: Answer to Second Amended Class Action Filed

TSUNAMI: Faces "Vongkultrup" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNITED STATES: Sends Buy-Back Offers to Blackfeet Landowners
UNITED STATES: March 16 Final Settlement Hearing in "Hart"
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Must Defend Against "Sanchez" FDCPA Suit
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stelmachers' Amended Complaint Dismissed

VIKING RANGE: "Piemonte" Suit Over Defective Fridge Dismissed
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Has Go Signal to Recall 61,000 Cars in Australia
WAL-MART STORES: "Mars" Suit Moved from E.D. to W.D. Arkansas
WAL-MART: Settles LGBT Employees' Discrimination Class Action
WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces 171 Actonel(R) Product Liability Cases

WEIGHT WATCHERS: Continues to Defend "Roberts" Suit in New York
WELLS FARGO: Wants 60 Plaintiffs to Submit Claims in Arbitration
WESTERN DIGITAL: Awaits Decision on Bid to Toss Antitrust Claims
WESTERN DIGITAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
WESTERN DIGITAL: Ritz Camera's Appeal Pending in Federal Circuit

* 9 Cases Started Since French Class Action Law Implementation
* Commercial Websites Must Comply with Accessibility Guidelines
* Corporate General Counsels Part of Fraudulent Group
* Few Class Action Nonprofits in Israel Use Special Status


                            *********


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in TRT Class Action in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that discovery in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class
Action is in the early stages.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection
with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement
therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the
Company's Androderm(R) product. This matter was filed in the TRT
Products Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product
liability matter.

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff
seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive
relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and
to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after
which plaintiff amended its complaint.

Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on
February 3, 2016.

The Court dismissed plaintiff's substantive RICO claims for mail
and wire fraud for failure to plead with particularity under Rule
9(b) but granted plaintiffs leave to replead. The court also
dismissed plaintiff's state law statutory claims and common law
claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. The Court declined to
dismiss plaintiff's conspiracy claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1962(d) and its claims for negligent misrepresentation.

On March 2, 2016, the defendants jointly filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the court's ruling on plaintiff's claims under
18 U.S.C. Sec.  1962(d). Plaintiff filed its Third Amended
Complaint on April 7, 2016.  Defendants jointly filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on May 5, 2016, plaintiffs
filed opposition to same on June 20, 2016 and defendants jointly
filed a reply on July 7, 2016.

On August 2, 2016, the Court dismissed all claims in the Third
Amended Complaint against the Company except Count XXIV alleging
conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  1962(d).

On August 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Reconsideration
or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify for Interlocutory
Appeal, which the Court denied on the September 8, 2016.
Discovery is in the early stages.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action.
However, an adverse determination in the case could have an
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.

                       547 Actions Pending

Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited also said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits
were filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as
well as other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone
products, for personal injuries including but not limited to
cardiovascular events allegedly arising out of the use of
Androderm(R)testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone
enanthate.

Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been
served in approximately 547 currently pending actions, one of
which is pending in state courts and the remainder of which are
pending in federal court. The federal court actions have been
consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois.

The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint
in the MDL. Plaintiffs have dismissed all claims relating to any
of Actavis' generic TRT products from the cases.

These cases are in the initial stages and discovery is ongoing.

The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The
Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Still Faces Sales Representatives Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
against a collective action by certain former company sales
representatives and specialty sales representatives.

In July 2012, Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates
were named as defendants in an action brought by certain former
company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives
in the federal district court in New York. The action is a
putative class and collective action, and alleges class claims
under Title VII for gender discrimination with respect to pay and
promotions, as well as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,
and a collective action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The
proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and former
female sales representatives employed by the Company throughout
the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title
VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and former female
sales representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant
while employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the
date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action
class includes current, former, and future female sales
representatives who were not compensated equally to similarly-
situated male employees during the applicable liability period.
The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on
behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment
and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act.

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part,
striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead
limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class
members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs'
claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of
an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the
Company has opposed.

On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to
conditionally certify a collective action.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action.

At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would
have a material effect on the results of operations or financial
position taken as a whole.


ALLERGAN PLC: Still Faces 1,740 Benicar(R) Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company is named in approximately 1,740 actions
involving allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for
hypertension that Forest co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between
2002 and 2008, caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under
Forest's Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending the
Company in these lawsuits.


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Dinaples" Suit in W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianceone
Receivables Management, Inc. The case is styled DONNA DINAPLES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01825-MRH (W.D. Pa.,
Dec. 6, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak.

AllianceOne provides debt collection services and contact center
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
          MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C.
          112 Washington Pl Ste 1-N
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 889 8535
          Facsimile: (800) 997 8192
          E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net


AMEDISYS INC: M.D. La. Securities Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Defendants
have filed an Answer to securities class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class
action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana (the "District Court") against
the Company and certain of our current and former senior
executives. Additional putative securities class actions were
filed in the District Court on July 14, July 16, and July 28,
2010."

"On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about our business, financial condition, operations
and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our
business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The
Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

"All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June
28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District
Court denied on April 9, 2013.

"On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. On
October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth
Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as
a whole court. On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the
defendants' motion for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit panel's
decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the
Securities Complaint."

The case then returned to the District Court for further
proceedings. On March 30, 2015, the defendants filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari (the "Petition") with the United States
Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to consider whether the
Fifth Circuit erred in reversing the District Court's dismissal of
the Securities Complaint. The Supreme Court denied the Petition on
June 29, 2015, which did not affect the ongoing proceedings before
the District Court, including the District Court's consideration
of a motion filed on April 3, 2015, by the Co-Lead Plaintiffs for
leave to amend the Securities Complaint, which motion was granted
by the District Court.

On December 15, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Co-Lead Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint. All
discovery in the case is currently stayed pursuant to federal law.
The parties agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated
settlement of this matter, and a mediation was held on June 21,
2016. The parties were unable to resolve this matter during the
mediation. On August 19, 2016, the District Court denied the
defendants motion to dismiss the Co-Lead Plantiffs' First Amended
Consolidated Complaint. The Defendants filed an Answer to the
Complaint on October 20, 2016.

The Company said, "We are unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
the securities litigation described above. The Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities litigation
matter but, if decided adverse to the Company, its impact could be
material. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome
of the securities matter described above or the impact of any of
the inquiry or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which
could be material, individually or in the aggregate."


AMEDISYS INC: N.D. Ill. Court Approves Accord in Employee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has
approved the final settlement of an employee class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On September 13, 2012, a putative collective
and class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us in which a
former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former
employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly
basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in her
misclassification as an exempt employee, thereby denying her
overtime. The plaintiff alleges violations of federal and state
law and seeks damages under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class
certification of similar employees who were or are employed in
Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated
damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years
under the Illinois statute."

"On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay
the case pending resolution of class certification issues and
dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case. On
December 23, 2015, the parties agreed to explore the possibility
of a mediated settlement of the Illinois case, and a mediation
occurred on April 18, 2016.

"The parties agreed to settle the case for $0.8 million, subject
to court approval, which the Company has accrued as of September
30, 2016. On August 4, 2016, the Court approved the final
settlement of this case."


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Touche" Class Action Over Defective Airbag
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Florida Record, reports that a
Gainesville resident has filed a class action lawsuit against
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a vehicle manufacturer, citing
alleged insufficient measures were taken to prevent injuries,
negligence and product liability.

Nola Touche filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. alleging that the
vehicle manufacturer sold a vehicle to the plaintiff that has a
defective airbag.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she
suffered damages from purchasing a vehicle that has a defective
airbag that may cause injuries when it deploys.  The plaintiff
holds American Honda Motor Co., Inc. responsible because the
defendant allegedly failed to make sure that their vehicles are
equipped with a properly working airbag.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunctive
relief, damages, all legal fees and any other relief as this court
deems just.  She is represented by Paul S. Rothstein of
Gainesville.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida Case
number 1:16-cv-00339-MW-GRJ


ARAMARK BUSINESS: "Knapp" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN KNAPP, an individual on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK BUSINESS CENTER, LLC,
Case No. 3:16-cv-03158 (M.D. Tenn., December 7, 2016), was filed
on behalf of Plaintiff and all employees of Defendant who
performed work as "general ledger accountants" and who were
allegedly improperly classified as an "exempt" employee under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

ARAMARK Business Center, LLC is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The company operates as a subsidiary of ARAMARK
Corporation.  Aramark provides food service, facilities and
uniform services to hospitals, universities, school districts,
stadiums and other businesses around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Russell, Esq.
     Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
     GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37064
     Phone: 615-354-1144
     E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
     Email: eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


ASHLEY SERVICES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Ashley Services Group Ltd. is facing a
federal class action.  The company received an originating
application and statement of claim filed in federal court of
Australia on November 30, 2016.  Ash denies all liability in
respect of these allegations and advises that they will be
vigorously defended.

Proceedings were originally threatened by IMF Bentham in its asx
release on August 17, 2015.  Proceedings are brought by certain
ash shareholders against Ash.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Settlement Approval Bid to Be Re-Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court
administratively terminated a motion to approve settlement without
prejudice due to the filing of an appeal of an order denying a
motion to intervene in the settlement, but the Company expects
that the motion will be re-filed shortly.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community in Edgewater, NJ. The Company
believes that the fire was caused by sparks from a torch used
during repairs being performed by a Company employee who was not a
licensed plumber. The Company has since revised its maintenance
policies to require that non-flame tools be used for plumbing
repairs where possible or, where not possible inside the building
envelope, that a qualified third party vendor perform the work in
accordance with AvalonBay policies.

The Company has established protocols for processing claims from
third parties who suffered losses as a result of the fire, and
many third parties have contacted the Company's insurance carrier
and settled their claims. Through the date of this Form 10-Q, of
the 229 occupied apartments destroyed in the fire, the residents
of approximately 95 units have settled claims with the Company's
insurer, and claims from an additional approximate 36 units are
being evaluated by the Company's insurer.

Three class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company on
behalf of occupants of the destroyed building and consolidated in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Company has agreed with class counsel to the terms of a
proposed settlement which would provide a claims process (with
agreed upon protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to
evaluate claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to
determine damage amounts to be paid to individual claimants
covered by the class settlement.

On July 8, 2016, class counsel filed with the court a motion for
preliminary approval of this class settlement, and the Company did
not oppose such motion. The Court administratively terminated this
motion without prejudice due to the filing of an appeal of an
order denying a motion to intervene in the settlement, but the
Company expects that the motion will be re-filed shortly. The
Company cannot predict when or if the court will approve the
settlement.

A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was
filed against the Company on behalf of residents of the second
Edgewater building that suffered minimal damage.

In addition to the class action lawsuits, 20 lawsuits representing
approximately 141 individual plaintiffs have been filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County - Law Division and 19
of these lawsuits are currently pending. All of these state court
cases have been consolidated by the court; the Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed
in all of the suits.

There are also three subrogation lawsuits that have been filed
against the Company by insurers of Edgewater residents who
obtained "renter's insurance"; it is the Company's position that
in the majority of the applicable leases the residents waived
subrogation rights.

One of these lawsuits has been dismissed on that basis and the
other two are currently pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Having settled many third party claims through the insurance
claims process, the Company currently believes that any potential
remaining liability to third parties (including any potential
liability to third parties determined in accordance with the class
settlement described above, if approved) will not be material to
the Company and will in any event be substantially covered by the
Company's insurance policies. However, the Company can give no
assurances in this regard and continues to evaluate this matter.

The Company is involved in various other claims and/or
administrative proceedings unrelated to the Edgewater casualty
loss that arise in the ordinary course of its business. While no
assurances can be given, the Company does not currently believe
that any of these other outstanding litigation matters,
individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition or results of operations.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Muzingo Now a Class Member in "Walker" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Audrey Muzingo is
now considered a member of the class in the Walker case pursuant
to an agreement.

On December 19, 2011, the Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the
Ozarks were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas,
Division III, styled Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk
vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks.

On December 20, 2012, the Bank was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks. The complaint in each case challenges the
manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies
related to the posting order of payments.  In addition, each
complaint alleges violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  Each of the complaints seeks to have the cases
certified by the court as a class action for all Bank account
holders located in the State of Arkansas similarly situated, and
seeks (1) a declaratory judgment as to the wrongful nature of the
Bank's overdraft fee policies, (2) restitution of overdraft fees
paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class as a result of the
actions cited in the complaints, (3) disgorgement of profits as a
result of the alleged wrongful actions, (4) unspecified
compensatory and statutory or punitive damages, and (5) pre-
judgment interest, costs, and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and the Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the consumer deposit account
agreement in the Walker case, which was denied by the trial court.
The Company and the Bank appealed the trial court's ruling to the
Arkansas Supreme Court on an interlocutory basis.  The Arkansas
Supreme Court recently affirmed the trial courts' decision to deny
the Company and Bank's motion to compel arbitration, finding that
there was no mutual agreement or obligation to arbitrate under the
terms of the subject deposit account agreement.

The Company and Bank filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with
the Supreme Court of the United States requesting that the Supreme
Court of the United States review the Arkansas Supreme Court's
decision, but that request was denied.  The parties are now
engaged in pre-trial discovery.

Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Walker case and counsel for the
plaintiff in the Muzingo case have reached an agreement whereby
Ms. Muzingo is now considered a member of the class in the Walker
case.

Although there are significant uncertainties in any purported
class action litigation, the Company and the Bank believe that the
Plaintiffs' claims in the Walker case are subject to meritorious
defenses and intend to defend against these claims.

Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., is a financial holding company
headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, which operates under the
rules and regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System.  The Company owns a wholly-owned state chartered
bank subsidiary -- Bank of the Ozarks, eight 100%-owned finance
subsidiary business trusts -- Ozark Capital Statutory Trust II,
Ozark Capital Statutory Trust III, Ozark Capital Statutory Trust
IV, Ozark Capital Statutory Trust V, Intervest Statutory Trust II,
Intervest Statutory Trust III, Intervest Statutory Trust IV and
Intervest Statutory Trust V, and, indirectly through the Bank, a
subsidiary that holds the Company's investment securities, a
subsidiary engaged in the development of real estate, a subsidiary
that owns private aircraft and various other entities that hold
loans, foreclosed assets or tax credits or engage in other
activities.


BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Terence L. Bruiniers of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's order denying a motion to
compel arbitration of "individual PAGA claim" and to stay or
dismiss the remainder of the complaint in the case captioned,
BERNADETTE TANGUILIG, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BLOOMINGDALE'S,
INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A145283 (Cal. App.).

Tanguilig, an employee at Bloomingdale's, filed on August 15,
2014, a representative action on behalf of the State of
California, and on behalf of herself and fellow employees pursuant
to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)
alleging several Labor Code violations by the company, asserting
claims for civil penalties and statutory remedies.  Tanguilig
alleged she was a current Bloomingdale's employee and the company
failed to provide its commission-earning employees with paid rest
periods, minimum wage for noncommission-producing activities,
complete and accurate wage statements, and timely payment of their
wages

Bloomingdale's moved to compel arbitration of Tanguilig's
"individual PAGA claim" and stay or dismiss the remainder of the
complaint.  The company produced a copy of the dispute resolution
procedure (Agreement) that Tanguilig accepted as a condition of
her employment. The Agreement required Tanguilig to submit "all
employment-related legal disputes, controversies or claims" to a
four-step dispute resolution process that culminated in final and
binding arbitration. The Agreement prohibited an arbitrator from
"consolidating claims of different employees into one (1)
proceeding" and from "hearing an arbitration as a class or
collective action.

The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the representative
action waiver was unenforceable under Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, despite the
existence of an opt-out procedure in the Agreement.  Iskanian
holds that an employee's right to bring a PAGA action is
nonwaivable under state law (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp.
382-383, citing Civ. Code, Sections 1668, 3513), and this state-
law rule is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

On appeal, Bloomingdale's no longer argues Iskanian is
distinguishable based on the opt-out provision. Instead, it argues
that the case was wrongly decided or, if Iskanian  correctly ruled
that a representative action waiver is unenforceable despite the
FAA, that Tanguilig should have been required to arbitrate the
individual element of her PAGA claim.

In her Order dated November 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Is6L8r from Leagle.com, Justice Bruiniers found that
the Federal Arbitration Act, which is primarily concerned with
private disputes, does not preempt the state-law bar against a
private predispute waiver of a PAGA claim and that the right to
litigate a PAGA claim in court is not subject to predispute waiver
-- with respect to an "individual" or a group claim -- by an
individual employee pursuant to a private employment arbitration
agreement. That is, the claim cannot be ordered to arbitration
without the consent of the real party in interest, the state.

Bernadette Tanguilig is represented by Gordon W. Renneisen, Esq. -
- grenneisen@cornerlaw.com -- Harry G. Lewis, Esq. --
hlewis@cornerlaw.com -- and Jennifer A. Donnella, Esq. --
jdonnella@cornerlaw.com -- CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP

Bloomingdale's, Inc. s represented by David S. Bradshaw, Esq. --
BradshawD@jacksonlewis.com -- Nathan W. Austin, Esq. --
AustinN@jacksonlewis.com -- and Patrick C. Mullin, Esq. --
MullinP@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS


CALIFORNIA: Forest Service May Face Gender Bias Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Doyle, writing for Centre Daily Times, reports that a
Forest Service firefighter from California's Eldorado National
Forest blew another whistle on Nov. 24 on sexual harassment and
gender bias inside federal public lands agencies.

Reinforcing claims previously made by many others over many years,
Fire Prevention Technician Denice Rice told a House panel of
repeated problems facing women, who remain greatly outnumbered by
men in the Forest Service.

"Women who report sexual harassment are retaliated against,"
Ms. Rice advised the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee.  "It is your word against his, and you know the moment
you open your mouth to speak up you are committing career
suicide."

Ms. Rice's testimony echoed, in part, some of the complaints made
in September to the same House committee by Yosemite National Park
fire and aviation management chief Kelly Martin.  Since that high-
profile hearing, other public-lands employees have come forward
with their own accounts.

Unlike some other investigations undertaken by the House oversight
committee, these ongoing probes have united, for the moment,
congressional Republicans and Democrats.  That's likely to amplify
the pressure on executive branch agencies to confront the
allegations.

"You represent a lot of voices that are quiet and silent," Rep.
Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the chair of the committee, told Rice.  He
added that "we will go to the end of the Earth to protect you."

A 20-year veteran of the Forest Service, Rice has worked in fire
protection in the Eldorado for the past 15 years.  The forest
includes within its boundaries about 787,000 acres of public and
private land in the central Sierra Nevada mountains.

Ms. Rice testified that between 2009 and 2011, her second line
supervisor repeatedly harassed her sexually.  In 2011, she said,
he assaulted her; and then, she said, her life "became a living
hell."

"I filed a complaint and the instant I filed everything changed,"
Ms. Rice testified.  "Management removed all of my supervisory
responsibilities, moved me from my location, and isolated me."

Forest Service officials eventually let the man Rice called a
"predator" retire without a mark on his record, she testified.

In August 2014, citing a litany of similar problems, female
employees within the Forest Service's California-based Region 5
joined in a formal agency complaint.  Mediation efforts in San
Francisco failed last year, potentially setting the stage for an
escalation of the fight to federal court.

"I fear the new administration will have a class-action lawsuit to
contend with in 2017," said Lesa L. Donnelly, vice president of
the USDA Coalition of Minority Employees.

It wouldn't be the first one.

In the early 1970s, a California-based Forest Service research
sociologist named Gene Bernardi filed a sex discrimination class-
action lawsuit against the agency after she was denied a
promotion.  A subsequent consent decree compelled federal
officials to hire more women and institute additional protections,
but continuing complaints led to additional lawsuits in the 1990s.

Women currently comprise 35 percent of the Forest Service
workforce, and hold half of the agency's top executive leadership
positions, according to Lenise Lago, deputy chief for business
operations.  Only about 10 percent of wildland firefighters are
women, despite more aggressive Forest Service recruiting efforts.

Ms. Lago also cited enhanced training for Forest Service
employees, including "Prevention of Sexual Harassment" classes
that all Region 5 workers must attend annually.

Joe Leonard Jr., assistant secretary for civil rights for the
Agriculture Department, of which the Forest Service is a part,
added that officials have also undertaken "an independent climate
assessment of how female employees in Region 5 are treated," as
well as a reorganization of the Forest Service's civil rights'
staff.

"While there's still much to do, we've made significant progress,"
Mr. Leonard said.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Feb. 23 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Channick, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that for
anyone whose meal, TV show, tryst or other activity was
interrupted by a blaring robocall offering a "free" Caribbean
cruise, your ship may have just come in.

Caribbean Cruise Line has agreed to pay between $56 million and
$76 million to settle a class-action suit alleging the company and
its co-defendants made millions of unwanted robocalls offering the
free cruise trips in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Filed more than four years ago in Chicago federal court, the
class-action lawsuit was brought by Chicago-area residents Grant
Birchmeier and Stephen Parkes, who alleged Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-
based Caribbean Cruise Line illegally contacted them multiple
times on their cellphones.  The settlement class includes
consumers who received one or more of the automated phone calls
offering a free cruise in exchange for taking a political survey
between August 2011 and August 2012.

The lawsuit called the survey a "scam" and a "marketing tool with
no legitimate political basis."

Callers who completed the survey were immediately switched to a
Caribbean Cruise Line representative, according to the lawsuit.
Those who booked the free cruise were then pitched upgraded
accommodations if they attended a sales presentation for resort
condominiums owned by Florida-based Berkley Group, a co-defendant
in the lawsuit.

Caribbean Cruise Line does not operate its own ships, but placed
passengers on Celebration Cruise Line, based in the same Fort
Lauderdale office building, according to the lawsuit.

An attorney representing Caribbean Cruise Line did not immediately
return a request for comment on Dec. 2.

In 2012, the Federal Communications Commission revised its rules
to require telemarketers to obtain prior written consent from
consumers before robocalling them, to no longer allow an
"established business relationship" as an exemption and to provide
an "opt-out" mechanism during each robocall.

Mr. Parkes received nine robocalls from Political Opinions of
America, an operating unit of Caribbean Cruise Line, despite
repeatedly trying to remove himself from the call list through
automated prompts, the lawsuit said.

Many members of the class have been notified, and any person with
a valid claim is entitled to receive up to $500 per call -- until
the allocated settlement funds are exhausted.

Claimants whose numbers do not show up in the defendants' records
will need to provide a phone bill or other evidence of receiving
the calls.

A final settlement approval hearing is set for Feb. 23.

More information can be found on the settlement website:
freecruisecallclassaction.net.


CATALINA RESTAURNANT: "Farrar" Suit Transferred to Central Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JERI FARRAR and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, VS. CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and FOOD
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC., Defendants, was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division.  The Central District Court clerk assigned Case 2:16-cv-
09066-RSWL-AGR to the proceeding.

The Suit arises from Defendants' alleged failure to provide
Plaintiffs with 60 days advance notice of a mass layoff or plant
closing in violation of the Federal and California Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

CATALINA RESTAURANT operates and manages Coco's Bakery and Carrows
restaurant chains.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff R. Dingwall, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JEFF R. DINGWALL, PLC
     555 West Beech Street, Suite 510
     San Diego, CA 92 101
     Phone: 619.796.3464
     Fax: 619.717.8762
     E-mail: jeff@jrdingwall.com

        - and -

     Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
     TRAN LAW FINN LLP
     9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302
     Houston, TX 77042
     Phone: 713.223 .8855
     Fax: 713.623 .6399
     E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Fulghum & Abbott Case Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
believes the settlement of the Fulghum and Abbott class action
lawsuits is likely to be final in mid 2017.

The Company said, "In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq
Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of
retirees filed a class action lawsuit challenging the decision to
make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating
to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug
benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008
(which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce
estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than
$300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit
plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan
administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional
defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans.
The court certified classes on the claims for vested benefits and
age discrimination, but rejected class certification on the claims
for breach of fiduciary duty."

"On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that were at issue
in Fulghum.

"After extensive district court proceedings in Fulghum, and an
interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, defendants prevailed in 2015 on all age
discrimination claims and on the majority of claims for vested
benefits.

"The district court in Fulghum subsequently granted judgment in
favor of defendants on all remaining vested benefits claims, and
in July 2016 ordered that any affected class members could appeal
this ruling. No appeal was taken, and all claims for vested
benefits thus have lapsed.

"On August 31, 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle
on all remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott. Assuming its terms
are successfully implemented, we believe the settlement is likely
to be final in mid 2017.

"We have accrued a liability that we believe is probable for these
matters; the amount is not material to our consolidated financial
statements."

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of services to its residential and
business customers.


CFS2 INC: Faces "Gutman" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CFS2 Inc. The case
is titled Basya Gutman, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. CFS2 Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06745 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2016).

CFS2 is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CHICAGO, IL: To Complete Retiree Health Care Program Phaseout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fran Spielman, writing for Politics, reports that the witching
hour is fast approaching for thousands of Chicago's oldest retired
city employees, barring an 11-hour legal rescue.

On Dec. 31, Mayor Rahm Emanuel will complete a 3-year phaseout of
the city's retiree health care program, including a 55 percent
subsidy.

The controversial move is aimed at saving Chicago taxpayers $107
million in annual costs that would have ballooned to $307 million
by 2018 and $541 million by 2023 if left unchecked, a mayoral
commission had warned.

But it means that roughly 10,000 city employees who started
working for the city before April 1, 1986, and do not qualify for
Medicare will be on their own to search for coverage that will be
difficult or too expensive to find.

They will be forced to choose between exorbitant premiums that, in
some cases, are double their retirement checks or go without
health insurance coverage at a time when they need it the most
because of their age and declining health.

"We have people who are 75 years old who worked for the city for
30 years and more and none of them qualified for Medicare
coverage.  They're being dumped into an abyss," said
Clint Krislov, lawyer for the retirees.

Mr. Krislov noted that the city is referring non-Medicare-eligible
retirees to a Blue Cross-Blue Shield program at a monthly cost of
either $1,295 or $1,466 for single coverage; $2,305 or $2,610 for
a couple; and $3,138 or $3,622 for family coverage.

"The city has managed to drag this out and run out the clock.  We
have petitions, briefs and motions at all three levels of Illinois
courts asking them to block the city and pension funds from
turning off this coverage at the end of the year,"
Mr. Krislov.

The mayor's office had no immediate comment.

Mike Underwood, a retired Chicago Police officer with Parkinson's
disease, is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.  He was shot,
stabbed and suffered numerous broken bones while serving as a
police officer in the Austin neighborhood.

Mr. Underwood said he turned 65 last year. His wife turned 65 in
October.  Both are covered by Medicare.

But he feels "horrible" for the 10,000 retirees who are not
Medicare-eligible.

"Two thousand-six hundred dollars for a couple is more than some
people take home in their entire payment," Mr.  Underwood said.
"Without Medicare, I don't know how people can afford it.  I guess
they go to County [Stroger] Hospital."

Last summer, Circuit Judge Neil Cohen issued a mixed-bag ruling
that threatened to prevent Emanuel from completing the 3-year
phaseout.

Judge Cohen ruled that the lifetime health care coverage of 22,000
people who started working for the city before Aug. 23, 1989, is
protected by the Illinois Constitution's pension protection
clause.  It states that those benefits "shall not be diminished or
impaired."

Judge Cohen subsequently ruled that the pension funds have primary
responsibility to provide a health care plan for their
participants.  The city was merely on the hook to subsidize at
some level.

The judge dismissed the lifetime benefits claim made by retirees
who started working for the city after Aug. 23, 1989. He argued
that they began working under a statute that provided benefits
only for limited periods of time and that those periods have
expired.

But Judge Cohen subsequently refused to enjoin the city from
ending the coverage on Dec. 31.

That leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of an Illinois
Supreme Court that decided a similar case in favor of state
retirees, citing that same protection clause in the state
Constitution.

In May 2013, Mr. Emanuel announced plans to extend the retiree
health care subsidy until Jan. 1, 2014, then phase it out by 2017
to relieve Chicago taxpayers of a $108.7 million a year burden
they could no longer afford.

At the same time, the mayor announced that 4,638 of the oldest and
most vulnerable retirees would be guaranteed health care coverage
with a 55 percent subsidy for as long as they live.

Union leaders and retirees blasted the mayor for forcing retirees
to fend for themselves under the Affordable Care Act at the same
time he was using $125 million in public money to build a new
basketball arena near McCormick Place.

Retirees then flexed their legal muscle by filing a class-action
lawsuit that has played out in the courts ever since.

During his Oct. 11 budget address to the City Council, Emanuel
lumped the phaseout of the retiree health care subsidy into the
pot of "tough decisions" he has made to cut the city's structural
deficit by 80 percent.

"How did we get this done? We took on entrenched interests in some
cases and inertia in the system in others that were preventing us
from making some tough decisions and common sense choices," the
mayor said on that day.  "We saved $100 million in health care
costs, and our employee health care budget is level with 2011."


CHICK-FIL-A: Faces "West" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-09385-PGG (S.D.N.Y.,
December 5, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to design, construct, and own or operate a website that is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people.

Chick-Fil-A, Inc. owns and operates restaurant locations in the
Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


COLONIAL FREIGHT: "Davis" Labor Suit Transferred to D. Tenn
-----------------------------------------------------------
Theodus Davis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Colonial Freight Systems, Inc., Phoenix Leasing of
Tennessee, Inc., Ruby Mcbride and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00674 (D.N.J., September 20, 2016), was transferred to
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee,
Knoxville Division on November 30, 2016.  A motion to dismiss has
also been withdrawn.

Davis worked for Defendants as a commercial truck driver from
September 2014 to January 2016. Defendants claimed that Davis was
an independent contractor thus denying him employee-related
benefits.

Colonial is a truckload carrier operating throughout the United
States. Defendant Colonial is a corporation with its principal
place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee, and which operates out
of East Windsor, New Jersey with Ruby McBride as President and
Chief Executive Officer.

Plaintiff was represented by:

      Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      Travis Martindale-Jarvis, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Phone: (856) 685-7420
      Fax: (856) 685-7417

Colonial Freight Systems, Inc. was represented by:

      William D. Bierman, Esq.
      Thomas C. Martin, Esq.
      PRICE MEESE SHULMAN & D'ARMINIO
      Mack-Cali Corporate Center
      50 Tice Boulevard
      Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677-7644
      Tel: (201) 905-2443
      Fax: (201) 391-9360
      Email: WBierman@pricemeese.com
             tmartin@pricemeese.com


COMCAST CORP: Dispute Over Counsel Fee Allocation Goes to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, STANFORD GLABERSON, et al. v. COMCAST
CORPORATION, et al, Case No. 03-6604 (E.D. Pa.), District Judge
John R. Padova of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania ruled on Motions filed by Co-Lead Counsel
for the Plaintiffs' Class, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. ("HMO") and
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. ("SG").

The Motions asked the Court to allocate between the two firms
attorneys' fees that the Court previously awarded.

In the Final Judgment entered in the Class Action, the Court
collectively awarded Class Counsel $15 million in attorneys' fees
and expenses, and directed Co-Lead Counsel to allocate fees and
expenses among those firms that worked for the Class on a "fair,
reasonable and transparent basis applying factors courts consider
in awarding and allocating fees in class action litigation." Co-
Lead Counsel have fully reimbursed expenses incurred by all class
counsel, and have distributed fees to all class counsel other than
themselves. The fee distribution was based on the application of
the same negative multiplier (.2456) to each plaintiff firm's
lodestar.

A dispute has arisen between HMO and SG on how to allocate the
balance of the award ($4,664,137.96) between the two firms. HMO
seeks to allocate the fees between Co-Lead Counsel based on the
same methodology used in distributing fees to all other class
counsel, namely, by applying the uniform negative multiplier
(.2456) to each Co-Lead Counsel firm's respective lodestar.

SG disagrees with HMO's view that a distribution based on the two
firms' respective lodestar is appropriate. It asserts that doing
so would entitle HMO to receive more than 70 percent of the
remaining fee award attributable to the two firms' joint work. It
argues that SG and HMO entered into a Cable Cooperation Agreement
(CCA) at the outset of this case that provided they would "each
strive to contribute as between themselves equivalent productive
time to the Litigation."

HMO has moved the Court for an order allocating the remaining
attorneys' fees ($4,664,137.96) between Co-Lead Counsel based on
the same methodology used, upon the agreement of Co-Lead Counsel,
in distributing fees to all other Class Counsel. Specifically, HMO
moves to apply the identical negative multiplier (.245583289) to
each Co-Lead Counsel firm's respective lodestar amount. Under the
methodology, HMO would receive an allocation from the remaining
undistributed attorneys' fees of $3,274,090.62, and SG would
receive an allocation from the remaining undistributed attorneys'
fees of $1,390,047.34.

SG has moved the Court for an order allocating the remaining
undistributed attorneys' fees on a "50/50" basis as between Co-
Lead Counsel. Under SG's proposal, HMO and SG would each receive
$2,332,068.98. SG's proposal would result in SG receiving an
allocation reflecting a negative multiplier of approximately .41,
and HMO receiving a negative multiplier of approximately .17.

In his Memorandum dated October 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/oOJppo from Leagle.com, Judge Padova held that the
CCA does not control the allocation of fees, and that a
mathematical application of a ratio of the firms' lodestars is not
mandated. An evidentiary hearing is required before a final
allocation can be determined as each firm disputes the other
firm's averments concerning their roles in the litigation and the
importance of their assignments/contributions to the success of
the litigation.

Stanford Glaberson is represented by Ann D. White, Esq. --
awhite@awhitelaw.com -- AARP FOUNDATION LIT -- Anthony J.
Bolognese, Esq. -- ABolognese@bolognese-law.com -- and Joshua H.
Grabar, Esq. -- jgrabar@bolognese-law.com -- BOLOGNESE &
ASSOCIATES, LLC; Barry C. Barnett, Esq. --
Bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com -- Daniel H. Charest, Esq. --
dcharest@burnscharest.com -- Leelle Krompass, Esq. --
LKrompass@burnscharest.com -- and William R.H. Merrill, Esq. --
bmerrill@susmangodfrey.com -- SUSMAN GODREY LLP; David R.
Woodward, Esq. -- dwoodward@heinsmills.com -- and Jessica N.
Servais, Esq. -- jservais@heinsmills.com -- HEINS MILLS & OLSON
PLC; and Douglas A. Millen, Esq. -- dmillen@fklmlaw.com -- FREED
KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC

Comcast Corporation is represented by Alycia Regan Benenati, Esq.
-- abenenati@kasowitz.com -- Ayana Rivers, Esq. --
arivers@kasowitz.com -- David M. Max, Esq. -- dmax@kasowitz.com
-- Dorit Ungar, Esq. -- dungar@kasowitz.com -- James T. Cain, Esq.
-- jcain@kasowitz.com -- Megan K. Zwiebel, Esq. --
mzwiebel@kasowitz.com -- Michael E. Hagenson, Esq. --
mhagenson@kasowitz.com -- and Michael S. Shuster, Esq. --
mshuster@kasowitz.com -- KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP --
Christopher B. Hockett, Esq. -- chris.hockett@davispolk.com --
Dana M. Seshens, Esq. -- dana.seshens@davispolk.com -- Arthur J.
Burke, Esq. -- arthur.burke@davispolk.com -- David B. Toscano,
Esq. -- david.toscano@davispolk.com -- Jessica K. Foschi, Esq. --
Jessica.foschi@davispolk.com -- and Michael P. Carroll, Esq. --
DAVIS, POLK & WARDWELL; Burt M. Rublin, Esq. --
rublin@ballardspahr.com -- M. Norman Goldberger, Esq. --
goldbergerm@ballardspahr.com -- and Paul J. Koob, Esq. --
koobp@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Class Certification Bid in "Strauch" Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification of California,
Connecticut and North Carolina state-law classes remains pending.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011, to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC
improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the
FLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages and
associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes,
including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No.
4-2001 and the California Private Attorneys General Act. The
relief sought by plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in
the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due and civil
penalties.

CSC's position is that its system administrators have the job
duties, responsibilities and salaries of exempt employees and are
properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation
requirements. CSC's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in
February 2015.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more
than 4,000 system administrators. Courts typically undertake a
two-stage review in determining whether a suit may proceed as a
class action under the FLSA.

In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court
examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed
class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally
certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an
opportunity to opt-in to the action.

The second step of the class certification analysis occurs upon
completion of discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all
evidence then in the record to determine whether there is a
sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed class members are
similarly situated. If it is determined that they are, the case
will proceed to trial; if it is determined they are not, the class
is decertified and only the individual claims of the purported
class representatives proceed.

The Company's position in this litigation continues to be that the
employees identified as belonging to the conditional class were
paid in accordance with the FLSA.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs
and allege violations under Missouri and North Carolina wage and
hour laws. We do not believe these additional claims differ
materially from those in the original complaint. On June 3, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for Rule 23 class certification of
California, Connecticut and North Carolina state-law classes. The
Company filed its opposition to the motion on July 15, 2016, and
Plaintiffs filed their reply on August 12, 2016.

The Company is a next-generation global provider of information
technology (IT) services and solutions.


CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lyudmila Vinnik, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Concepts of Independence, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-09379 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees, and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Concepts of Independence, Inc. provides personal assistance to
individuals who live in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
      1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


CONVERGYS CORP: Has Made Final Payment in "Wheelock" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that final payment has
been made in connection with an agreement to settle the class
action lawsuit filed by Brandon Wheelock in California.

In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients,
Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai), tendered a contractual indemnity
claim to Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., a subsidiary of
the Company, relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon
Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of
similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange
County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-
BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleged that Hyundai violated California's
telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls with
customer service representatives without providing a disclosure
that the calls might be recorded.

An amended settlement agreement was executed by the plaintiff,
Hyundai and Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., and received
final approval from the Court during the fourth quarter of 2015.
The Company's liability with respect to the proposed settlement
was fully accrued at December 31, 2015, with final payment made
during January 2016. This matter did not have a material impact on
the Company's liquidity, results of operations or financial
condition.

Convergys Corporation is a global customer management leader,
focused on bringing value to its clients through every customer
interaction.  As of September 30, 2016, Convergys had more than
130,000 employees working in over 150 locations in 33 countries,
interacting with the Company's clients' customers in 58 languages.


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Settles FDCPA Class Action for $200,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Riley Johnson, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that the
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit that accused a Grand Island-
based debt collection company of violating federal law have won a
$200,000 settlement, according to documents filed on Nov. 30.

The settlement ends a legal fight Laura Powers and Nichole and
Jason Palmer brought against Credit Management Services in 2011.

Federal courts have previously ruled that debt collectors can't
collect attorney's fees or interest from people without first
receiving judgment from a court in a debt case.  But that's what
Credit Management Services tried to do when the company sought
payment for medical bills, according to court documents.

That made their complaints misleading and deceptive under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, said Pam Car of Omaha, one of the
attorneys who represented the plaintiffs.

That federal law is designed to protect consumers and ensure
unscrupulous debt collectors don't have an unfair advantage, Car
said.

In February, a federal judge agreed the complaint language
deceived consumers, saying it might make an "unsophisticated
consumer" believe the debt collector has the right to collect
those additional fees before securing a judgment.

The parties reached a settlement in November, and it was finalized
on Nov. 29.  Under it, 11,552 claimants will receive a
proportional share of the $198,000 payout, according to court
documents.

Credit Management Services doesn't have to admit liability, but
the company agreed to no longer use the complaint forms that
brought about the case.

Any undistributed money will go to the National Consumer Law
Center and National Association of Consumer Advocates for use in
consumer representation and education.

Credit Management Services must also pay $315,000 in attorney's
fees under the agreement.

"Consumers do have rights even though they may or may not owe a
debt," Car said.


CUMULUS MEDIA: ABS Pre-1972 Recordings Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The second Pre-1972 Recordings lawsuit remains pending in New
York, Cumulus Media Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said: "In August 2015, we were named as a defendant in
two separate putative class action lawsuits relating to our use
and public performance of certain sound recordings fixed prior to
February 15, 1972 (the "Pre-1972 Recordings"). The first suit, ABS
Entertainment, Inc., et al. v, Cumulus Media Inc., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California and alleges, among other things, copyright infringement
under California state law, common law conversion,
misappropriation and unfair business practices. On December 11,
2015, this suit was dismissed without prejudice."

"The second suit, ABS Entertainment, Inc., v. Cumulus Media Inc.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and alleges, among other things, common law
copyright infringement and unfair competition. The New York
lawsuit has been stayed pending an appeal before the Second
Circuit involving unrelated third-parties over whether the owner
of a Pre-1972 Recording holds an exclusive right to publicly
perform that recording under New York common law."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The pending suit seeks unspecified damages. The Company is
evaluating the suit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. The
Company is not yet able to determine what effect the lawsuit will
have, if any, on its financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.

Cumulus Media Inc. is a Delaware corporation, organized in 2002,
and successor by merger to an Illinois corporation with the same
name that had been organized in 1997.  Cumulus Media is in the
radio broadcasting industry.  The Company is one of the nation's
leading provider of country music and lifestyle content through
its NASH brand, which serves country fans nationwide through radio
programming, exclusive digital content, and live events.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facility
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Wells, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
06293-HB (E.D. Penn., December 5, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to remove architectural and communication
barriers in existing facility, denying equal access to disabled
persons.

The Defendants own and operate several restaurant chains
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@kalraylaw.com


DEFENDERS INC: Motion to Remand Case to N.J. Super. Ct. Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey adopted in relevant part Magistrate
Judge Mannion's Report & Recommendation and denied Plaintiff's
motion to remand in the case captioned, NORMAN WALSH, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEFENDERS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-0753 (ES) (SCM) (D.N.J.).

On December 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an initial complaint in
state court. On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The crux of Plaintiff's allegation is that Defendants
"buried" unlawful provisions in its consumer contracts in
violation of numerous New Jersey laws. Defendant Defenders, Inc.
(Defenders), an Indiana corporation with its principal place of
business in Indianapolis, Indiana, removed Plaintiff's action to
this Court on February 11, 2016, asserting federal diversity
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2) (CAFA).

Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that remand is mandated under
CAFA's "local controversy" exception and proper because Defenders
failed to plausibly allege CAFA's $5,000,000 amount in controversy
threshold. In the R & R, Magistrate Judge Mannion disagreed with
Plaintiff, finding (among other things) that "CAFA's local
controversy exception does not apply" and "Defenders has met its
initial burden in demonstrating the amount in controversy
plausibly exceeds $5,000,000."

In her Memorandum Opinion dated November 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ahtr25 from Leagle.com, Judge Salas found that
Plaintiff's Objection unavailing and concluded that Plaintiff has
failed to sustain his burden of showing that the local controversy
exception applies.

NORMAN WALSH, Plaintiff, represented by Henry Paul Wolfe, Esq. --
hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC -- Yongmoon Kim,
Esq. -- rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com -- KIM LAW FIRM LLC

DEFENDERS, INC., et al. are represented by Joanna Terese Vassallo,
Esq. -- jvassallo@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in "Weinstat" Case Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs'
appeal related to the class action lawsuit by Marvin Weinstat, DDS
and Richard Nathan, DDS, remains pending.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund
of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in
oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in
June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair
business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined
as California dental professionals who, at any time during the
period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients,
which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that
"Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all
types of periodontal disease."

The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014,
the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the
Company's favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims.

The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court's decision, and
the appeal is now pending. The Company is defending against this
appeal.

Dentsply Sirona develops, manufactures, and markets a
comprehensive solutions offering including dental and oral health
products as well as other consumable medical devices under a
strong portfolio of world class brands.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
awaiting a court ruling on the class certification motion in the
case by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for
lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint
under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City
Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now
proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists").

The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action,
to which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court
subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed
plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims,
leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to
which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the
express warranty cause of action, which was denied.

The Court held hearings during January, February, and August 2016,
on plaintiffs' class certification motion.  The Court has not
scheduled further hearings in the matter and the Company is
awaiting a ruling on the motion by the Court.

Dentsply Sirona develops, manufactures, and markets a
comprehensive solutions offering including dental and oral health
products as well as other consumable medical devices under a
strong portfolio of world class brands.


DENVER, CO: Disability Awareness Groups File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a coalition of groups that
advocate for the rights of the disabled is suing the city of
Denver claiming it's discriminating against people who use
wheelchairs by failing to provide necessary access for them at
concerts at Red Rocks.

Disability Law Colorado, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement
Center and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition represent six
plaintiffs in the federal class-action lawsuit.

KUSA-TV in Denver reports that Red Rocks only has two wheelchair-
accessible rows, one in the front and one in the back.

The lawsuit alleges the city is failing to prevent people who
aren't disabled from getting space in the front row at Red Rocks.
It demands the city clearly mark the accessible rows as being for
disabled customers to discourage others from occupying them.  It
also seeks to require city staff to ask people occupying space in
the front row about their disability needs and to move them
elsewhere if they're not disabled.

Frank Mango is one of the plaintiffs.  He said he's been going to
Red Rocks for 30 years.  Accessibility became an issue for him
three years ago after a fall in a home-improvement accident.  He's
now in a wheelchair.

"It's just frustrating, because I'm a big, huge, monster concert
fan and I've always been even before my accident," Mr. Mango said.
"Now being in a wheelchair, a lot of my passions are out of my
reach.  That's the least I can do (go to concerts), one of the
easy things I can do now.  It should be fairly easy.  It's just
frustrating that it's almost impossible to get front row here."

Mr. Mango said he doesn't like sitting all the way in the back. He
said seats in the first row are almost always sold out for face
value and available only at inflated prices on third party sites.

Mr. Mango said that ticket sites may warn customers when they're
buying front-row tickets that they're buying accessible seating.
However, he said that hasn't stopped people who aren't disabled
from buying them.

"I know that's a lot of people coming in fraudulently, buying the
front row seats," he said.  "That's one of the biggest concerns,
as they have no morals or no ethics.  I can go in and press this
button, they're going to let me buy the ticket, when I get to Red
Rocks, they're not going to question me whether or not I need
those seats or not for disability."

Alison Butler Daniels, director of legal services at Disability
Law Colorado, said the city is allowed to ask people who buy
front-row seats if they have a disability that requires them to be
in the seats.  "They can't further inquire about their disability,
but they can ask that simple question," she said. "And if the
answer is no, then they can be re-seated to one of the other 9,000
plus seats within Red Rocks and people who actually needs those
seats can be reseated to those accessible seats."

Ms. Butler Daniels said the plaintiffs aren't asking for money.
"We're asking them to make the necessary changes so that people
who use wheelchairs can enjoy this amazing Colorado treasure," she
said.

"We think a lot of self-policing would happen if everybody
understood that was in fact the accessible section," Ms. Butler
Daniels said.

Brian Kitts, spokesman for Red Rocks, said the city does what it
can to provide access for people with disabilities, including
those with hearing and vision impairments.  "What the real problem
is that people knowingly buy those tickets knowing that they are
for accessible patrons," he said.

However, Mr. Kitts said that tickets will be more clearly marked
starting with the 2017 season.  "When you buy those tickets you
know whether you're about to take someone's accessible seat and
whether you're willing to do that," he said.


DETREX CORP: Faces "Arnold" Suit in Ohio Over Property Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Arnold, Jessica Crislip, Vicki Shepard & Donald Shepard, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Detrex
Corp., Case No. CV-16-872684 (Ohio Com. Pleas, December 5, 2016),
is an action for property damages as a proximate result of the
Defendants' failure to install, maintain, and operate adequate
technology, to properly control emissions of noxious odors onto
Plaintiffs' property.

Detrex Corp. operates a chemical manufacturing company located at
1100 State Road, County of Ashtabula, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Petrov, Esq.
      THORMAN PETROV GROUP CO., LPA
      50 E. Washington Street
      Cleveland, OH 44022
      Telephone: (216) 621-3500
      Facsimile: (216) 621-3422
      E-mail: dpetrov@tpgfirm.com

         - and -

      Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
      Brandon T. Brown, Esq.
      LIDDLE & DUBIN PC
      975 E. Jefferson Avenue
      Detroit, MI 48207-3101
      Telephone: (313) 392-0015
      Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
      E-mail: lsheets@ldclassaction.com
              ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
              bbrown@ldclassaction.com


DEVON ENERGY: "Grellner" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to E.D. Okla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James Grellner and Judy Grellner,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs v. Devon Energy Corporation, including affiliated
predecessors and affiliated successors; and Devon Energy
Production Company, L.P., including affiliated predecessors and
affiliated successors, the Defendants, Case No. CJ-16-00242, was
removed from the Pittsburg County District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee).
The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00537-
KEW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate
Judge Kimberly E. West.

Devon is an independent natural gas, natural gas liquids, and
petroleum producer focused on onshore exploration and production
in North America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM (OKC)
          12 E California Ave, Ste 200
          Oklahoma City, OK 73104
          Telephone: (405) 820 4401
          E-mail: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark D. Christiansen, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT (OKC)
          211 N Robinson, 10th Flr
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103
          Telephone: (405) 235 9621
          Facsimile: (405) 228 7435
          E-mail: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com


DJM ADVISORY: Must Defend JWD Auto's Suit Over Fax Spam
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John E. Steele of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida denied Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in the case captioned, JWD
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Florida corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons d/b/a NAPA
Auto Care of Cape Coral, Plaintiff, v. DJM ADVISORY GROUP LLC,
BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, WILLIAM PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NEW YORK, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-793-
FtM-29MRM (M.D. Fla.).

On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff JWD Automotive, Inc. filed a
class-action complaint against DJM Advisory Group LLC (DJM
Advisory), Banner Life Insurance Company (Banner), William Penn
Life Insurance Company of New York (William Penn) and John Does 1-
10 (collectively, Defendants). The one-count Complaint alleges
that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 (TCPA), as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act (JFPA) of
2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, by sending Plaintiff (and others)
unsolicited commercial advertisements by facsimile machine (i.e.
junk faxes). The junk fax Plaintiff received lists monthly life
insurance premiums and invites recipients to submit their
information to receive a complimentary, personalized quote for a
DJM Advisory life insurance policy underwritten by Banner or
William Penn.

Plaintiff alleges that, by sending these junk faxes, Defendants:
i) caused Plaintiff and others to lose paper and toner; ii)
occupied their telephone lines and fax machines; iii) wasted their
time; and iv) violated their privacy interests.

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the ground that
Plaintiff lacks constitutional standing. Defendants Banner and
William Penn (the Underwriter Defendants) also seek dismissal of
Plaintiff's claims against them under Rule 12(b)(6), since the
Complaint "fails to include more than conclusory and formulaic
allegations about their alleged responsibility for the fax."
Should the Court deny the dismissal requests, Defendants moved in
the alternative to strike the Complaint's "fail-safe" class
definition.

In his Opinion and Order dated November 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/DDkvdn from Leagle.com, Judge Steele denied the
request for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Plaintiff
has adequately alleged a theory of strict liability against the
Underwriter Defendants as "senders" of the Fax.

JWD Automotive, Inc. is represented by Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- and Ross M. Good, Esq. --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA

DJM Advisory Group LLC is represented by John H. Gionis, Esq. --
jgionis@certilmanbalin.com -- Nicole L. Milone, Esq. --
nmilone@certilmanbalin.com -- and Paul B. Sweeney, Esq. --
psweeney@certilmanbalin.com -- CERTILMAN, BALIN, ADLER & HYMAN,
LLP

Banner Life Insurance Company, et al. are represented by Francis
X. Nolan, Esq. -- frank.nolan@sutherland.com -- Lewis S. Wiener,
Esq. -- lewis.wiener@sutherland.com -- and Patricia A. Gorham,
Esq. -- patricia.gorham@sutherland.com -- SUTHERLAND, ASBILL &
BRENNAN, LLP


EL AL: Pilot Strike Ends Following Agreement Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Zeff, writing for Jerusalem Post, reports that El Al CEO
David Maimon came to terms with his pilots on Dec. 4, bringing an
end to the work-to-rule strike that led to dozens of canceled
flights over the past month, damaged the company and
inconvenienced many of its passengers.

Following 21 hours of nonstop negotiations, mediated by Histadrut
labor federation chairman Avi Nissenkorn, Mr. Maimon signed a
final agreement with the pilots' representatives: Avi Edri,
chairman of the National Transportation Workers Union, and
Capt. Nir Zuk, head of the El Al pilots committee.

"We are happy to announce that we signed a new streamlining
agreement on Dec. 4 between El Al, the Histadrut, the workers'
representatives and the pilots.  This agreement will lead to a new
and efficient road of fruitful work with our pilots' branch for
the benefit of the company and all its employees," Mr. Maimon
said.

The agreement includes8.75% annual salary increases and the halt
of all "wet charters," a practice where one airline provides an
aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance to another airline to
carry out a flight.   El Al hired wet charters from other airlines
to carry out some flights during the recent labor dispute.

According to El Al, the money that will be saved due to the
streamlining will be used to pay for the pilots' salary increase.

In return, the pilots will stop "splitting" flights, where a pilot
works only one leg of a roundtrip voyage, and flies the second as
a passenger in business class.

They will also reduce overnight stays from 44 to 27 hours before
flying the return leg.  Additionally, pilots agreed to cut long-
distance flight times, as in the past they deliberately prolonged
flight durations on occasion to receive larger flight-time
bonuses.

"The pilots feel very encouraged by the resolution of the
conflict.

The company went through a rough period.  It was rough both for
the management and the workers, but ultimately it was the
passengers who suffered most due to this in-fighting," Mr. Edri
told The Jerusalem Post.

Since 2014, El Al pilots have been in a work dispute with
management over a variety of issues.  The pilots' demands included
being allowed to flight-split while being paid for the return leg
as if they were working.

Management begrudgingly accepted the practice, in order to keep
flights running, but with no resolution in sight they took a
harder line.

To avoid canceling as few flights as possible, El Al management
had taken to chartering flights under threat of cancellation due
to the strike to other carriers, that is "wet chartering." Pilots
then escalated their strike, refusing to fly altogether unless
they could flight-split.

Following the escalation of the conflict, Mr. Nissenkorn convened
Mr. Maimon and the pilots' representatives for several rounds of
negotiations.

Twice before, El Al management and Mr. Nissenkorn optimistically
announced the impending resolution of the work dispute, saying
that all the agreements had been made and that the parties were
now in the stage of signing a contract.

After the latest failure to close a deal between the parties, Mr.
Nissenkorn convened the sides on Dec. 3, vowing not to leave the
room until the crisis was resolved.

El Al maintained that actions taken by the pilots -- including the
strike and the failure of the negotiations rounds -- were an
attempt to improve their bargaining position, both for the
agreement and for a collective work agreement to be signed in
2018.  Representatives of the pilots, on the other hand,
maintained that the strike was aimed to better the conditions of
all El Al employees, but did not specify in which ways.

With the new agreement, it is now evident that it was the salary
issue that had prevented the pilots from coming to terms.  The
previous drafts agreed upon by both sides included a 7.35%, and
later, a 7.5% increase, with the rest of the crucial terms
remaining the same.

The strike hurt El Al earnings, as the company reported third-
quarter net income of $70 million, compared to $93m. from the same
period the previous year, though revenue was down just slightly at
$644m. from $647m. in the comparable period in 2015.

The quarterly report showed an increase in El Al's operational
costs in the past few months due to last-minute wet chartering.
Additional setbacks to company profits came from canceled or
postponed flights, especially due to an emergency policy
implemented by the company that allowed customers to get full
refunds with no fees for cancellations or rescheduling.

El Al's reputation took further hits due to the pilots' actions,
when the company plummeted to the bottom of the international
Flightstats rating, regaining the title of "Tardiest airliner in
the world."  Additionally, a class action lawsuit was filed with
the Tel Aviv District Court on Nov. 28, over the revelation that
El Al used to let pilots artificially prolong flights to get
bonuses, without alerting passengers.

"Personally, I am happy for El Al that the crisis is resolved. Now
they can put El Al back in its natural position, a position of
excellence and restore the company's reputation as the national
airline," Mr. Edri told the Post.

Mr. Maimon said, "I would also like to apologize to our clients
for the difficulties you experienced, and thank you for the
patience and loyalty you displayed.  We will do everything we can
to continue being deserving of your faith, and we will do this
with the help of our loyal workers."


EL POLLO: Reached Settlement of Orange County, Calif. Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2016, that the
parties in a class action in Orange County, California, have
executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release which has
been submitted for court approval.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all
hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain
violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The
putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of
damages sought was specified in the complaint.

"Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are
commonly filed against California employers, and we fully expect
to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future," the
Company said.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.  The Company's activities
are conducted principally through its indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., which develops, franchises,
licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the name El
Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one operating segment. At
September 28, 2016, the Company operated 193 and franchised 253 El
Pollo Loco restaurants.


EL POLLO: Turocy & Huston Actions Consolidated, Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit by
Daniel Turocy, et al., and Ron Huston, et al.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015,
and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.
The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.

A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf
of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings
common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of
call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and
August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are
Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo
Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli &
Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants").

The Company said, "Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in
2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor
costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of
such rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which
resulted in a decrease in value-conscious store traffic.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false
and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these
factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings
stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As
a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases,
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs
and expenses (including attorneys' fees)."

"On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Holdings' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22,
2016. Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted."

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.  The Company's activities
are conducted principally through its indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., which develops, franchises,
licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the name El
Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one operating segment. At
September 28, 2016, the Company operated 193 and franchised 253 El
Pollo Loco restaurants.


ENGINEERED PRODUCTS: Imperial Zinc's Claims Against EFR Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted a motion to
dismiss Counts II and III against Defendant EFR, LLC in the case
captioned, IMPERIAL ZINC CORP., Plaintiff, v. ENGINEERED PRODUCTS
INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16 CV 551 RWS
(E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff Imperial Zinc Corp. brings two claims -- Counts I and IV
-- for breach of contract and for action on account against
Defendant Engineered Products Industries, LLC (EPI), and two class
action claims -- Counts II and III -- against Defendant EFR, LLC,
a member of and the manager of EPI, for breach of trust
relationship and breach of fiduciary duty.

Imperial alleges that on a number of dates between July and
November 2013, EPI orally contracted with Imperial to purchase
zinc goods totaling more than $530,000. Imperial manufactured the
goods and delivered them to EPI, and EPI accepted and used the
goods but did not pay for them. After Imperial applied all credits
and setoffs, it demanded payment of $509,857.28 from EPI. EPI
admitted the debt but refuses to pay it. Imperial brings Counts I
and IV against EPI for breach of contract and action on account.

Imperial also brings two class action claims, Counts II and III,
against EFR in its capacity as the manager and director of EPI.
Imperial alleges the Plaintiff Class consists of Imperial and all
of EPI's other unidentified creditors to whom EPI owed money at
the time that it ceased doing business and whose debts have not
been resolved.

EFR moves to dismiss Counts II and III, arguing Imperial has
failed to state claims that are recognized under Missouri law and
that, to the extent Missouri recognizes the claims, Imperial fails
to allege facts sufficient to support them.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/NbSJ9p from Leagle.com, Judge Sippel found no
support for Imperial's claim that Missouri courts would recognize
claims for breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty under the
facts Imperial alleges. As a result, he concluded Imperial has
failed to state cognizable claims against EFR under Missouri law
and dismissed Counts II and III.

Imperial Zinc Corp. is represented by John L. Ropiequet, Esq. --
jlropiequet@arnstein.com -- Steven N. Malitz, Esq. --
snmalitz@arnstein.com -- and -- Joseph L. Hoolihan, Esq. --
jlhoolihan@arnstein.com -- ARNSTEIN AND LEHR ARNSTEIN AND LEHR --
Matthew G. Koehler, Esq. -- mkoehler@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES,
P.C.

EFR, L.L.C. and Engineered Products Industries, L.L.C. are
represented by Randall D. Grady, Esq. -- grady@riezmanberger.com -
- RIEZMAN BERGER, P.C.


FERGUSON, MO: "Fant" Suit Over Traffic Offense May Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Defendant's
motion to dismiss all claims in Plaintiffs' first amended
complaint except one, relating to the conditions of confinement,
and to dismiss Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief in the
case captioned, KEILEE FANT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF
FERGUSON, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00253-AGF (E.D. Mo.).

The named Plaintiffs in this putative civil rights class action
are 11 individuals who allege that they have been jailed by the
City of Ferguson (the City) on numerous occasions because they
were unable to pay cash bonds or other debts owed to the City
resulting from their traffic and other minor offenses. Plaintiffs
allege that, in violation of the United States Constitution and as
a matter of the City's policy and practice, they were not afforded
counsel, any inquiry into their ability to pay, or a neutral
finding of probable cause in a prompt manner; and they were held
in jail indefinitely, in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions,
until they or their friends or family members could make a
monetary payment sufficient to satisfy the City.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts seven claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, arising out of the City's policies and practices of
jailing individuals for failure to pay money owed from traffic and
other minor offenses. Plaintiffs seek to represent three classes:
(1) a declaratory and injunctive relief class of "all persons who
currently owe or who will incur debts to the City of Ferguson from
fines, fees, costs, or surcharges arising from cases prosecuted by
the City"; (2) a declaratory and injunctive relief class of "all
persons who, either because they owe debts to the City of
Ferguson, through warrantless arrest, or for any other reason,
will become in the custody of the City of Ferguson and thereby
subjected to its post-arrest wealth-based detention procedures";
and (3) a damages class of "all persons who, from February 8, 2010
until the present, were held in jail by the City because of their
non-payment of a monetary sum required by the City."

The Court denied an earlier motion by the City to dismiss
Plaintiffs' original complaint. In its current motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' amended complaint, the City incorporates by reference
the arguments raised in that earlier motion in order to "preserve
their arguments, preserve the record, and to allow the Court to
reconsider such arguments should the Court deem appropriate."

The City argues that each of the claims at issue arises out of a
municipal court judge's allegedly improper action (or inaction) in
carrying out judicial functions as part of the Ferguson Municipal
Court, which, according to the City, is an arm of the state and is
outside the control of the City as a matter of state law. The City
contends that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts establishing
standing to seek injunctive relief because Plaintiffs allege only
past harm and have not pleaded a real and immediate threat of
injury resulting from the City's conduct.

In her Memorandum and Order dated November 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/xByn1T from Leagle.com, Judge Fleissig found that
Plaintiffs have pleaded enough facts to raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support their
claim of municipal liability under Section 1983, which is all that
is required at the stage of the litigation. As to alternative
grounds, the Court held that the City fails to present a coherent
or complete legal argument as to why Eleventh Amendment immunity
would apply and as to injunctive relief, the City has not
demonstrated that the Consent Decree provides complete relief.

Keilee Fant, et al. are represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis,
Esq. -- alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org -- CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS --
Brendan D. Roediger, Esq. -- broedige@slu.edu -- and John J.
Ammann, Esq. -- ammannjj@slu.edu -- ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
LAW -- Michael-John Voss, Esq. -- mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org --
Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. -- tharvey@archcitydefenders.org -- Blake
Alexander Strode, Esq. -- bstrode@archcitydefenders.org -- Edward
James Hall, Esq. -- ehall@archcitydefenders.org  -- and Nathaniel
Richard Carroll, Esq. -- ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org --
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS; and Sonia Williams Murphy, Esq. --
smurphy@whitecase.com -- WHITE AND CASE

City of Ferguson, Missouri is represented by Peter J. Dunne, Esq.
-- dunne@pspclaw.com -- and Robert T. Plunkert, Esq. --
plunkett@pspclaw.com -- PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge RAM 1500 EcoDiesel Owner Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California Dodge RAM 1500 EcoDiesel owner on Dec. 1 filed a
class-action lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler and Bosch LLC stating
the two entities knowingly concealed the use of an emissions-
cheating defeat device and illegally high emissions levels up to
10 times the legal limit in EcoDiesel vehicles, and sold them
under false pretenses, according to leading plaintiffs' class-
action law firm Hagens Berman.

The firm estimates that consumers paid premiums of up to $4,700
for vehicles that fail to meet federal emissions standards and are
on the road illegally.  The defeat device affects 140,000 Dodge
RAM 1500s and 9,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee models, selling at 3,000
per month, according to the firm.

If you own or lease a 2014-2016 Dodge RAM 1500 EcoDiesel or
2014-2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel, find out more about your
consumer rights to potential compensation.

The lawsuit accuses FCA and Bosch of supporting and participating
in a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)
enterprise, and charges FCA with committing fraudulent
concealment, false advertising and acting in violation of
consumer-rights laws by selling vehicles equipped with an
emissions system that during normal driving conditions emits many
multiples of the allowed level of pollutants such as NOx (mono-
nitrogen oxides).  In order to appeal to environmentally conscious
consumers, the lawsuit states that FCA erroneously "claims that
'no NOx' exits the tailpipe."

The lawsuit, filed Dec. 1, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California seeks reimbursement for a
proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased or leased the
affected vehicles, as well as injunctive relief and equitable
relief for FCA and Bosch's misconduct related to the design,
manufacture, marketing, sale and lease of affected vehicles.

"Bosch and Fiat Chrysler took full advantage of consumers' wishes
to make a conscious, ecofriendly purchasing decision by vigorously
marketing its EcoDiesel line as 'clean diesel,' as a means to
charge premium prices -- more than $4,700 more," said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "Dodge owners across
the country fell victim to these corporations' dirty tactics and
are now faced with the reality that the premium price they paid
for 'reduced emissions' was a joke."

"These cars were designed with one purpose in mind -- to evade
U.S. emissions regulations in order to gain dirty profits.  FCA's
'advanced emissions-control technology' is a sham," Mr. Berman
added. "Bosch and Fiat Chrysler's emissions-cheating scam has cost
consumers dearly."

The lawsuit states, "To appeal to environmentally conscious
consumers, FCA vigorously markets its EcoDiesel vehicles as "clean
diesel" with ultra-low emissions, high fuel economy and powerful
torque and towing capacity.  And, FCA charges a premium for
EcoDiesel-equipped vehicles.  For example, selecting the 3.0 liter
EcoDiesel engine on the 2016 Dodge RAM 1500 Laramie adds $4,770 to
the purchase price.  And the 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland
EcoDiesel costs $4,500 more than its gasoline counterpart."

In its EcoDiesel advertising, FCA specifically targets consumers
"who want to drive an efficient, environmentally-friendly truck
without sacrificing capability or performance."  It also claims
the RAM 1500 was "the NAFTA market's first and only light-duty
pickup powered by clean diesel technology."

According to the complaint, affected vehicles will necessarily be
worth less in the marketplace because of their decrease in
performance and increased wear on their cars' engines.

The suit states that engineering giant, Bosch is "at the heart of
the diesel scandal in the United States," and was an "active and
knowing participant in the scheme to evade U.S. Emissions
requirements."  The complaint states that Bosch manufactured and
tested the electronic, diesel control (EDC) that allowed FCA to
implement the emissions-cheating defeat device.

"Bosch participated not just in the development of the defeat
device, but in the scheme to prevent U.S. regulators from
uncovering the device's true functionality," the lawsuit states.

Diesel Testing Reveals Defeat Device, High Emissions

After the by-products of diesel fuel combustion leave the engine,
the vehicle's EcoDiesel technology treats emissions using a diesel
oxidation catalyst, diesel particulate filter and selective
catalyst reduction.  But when this technology is operational, it
compromises fuel economy, according to the firm's investigation.

The firm's findings revealed that Fiat Chrysler intentionally
turns off emissions treatment, in violation of EPA requirements,
because without cheating emissions, RAM 1500 EcoDiesels could not
achieve the fuel economy, range, towing power or performance that
Fiat Chrysler promises customers.

The applicable standard both at the federal level and in
California, where the lawsuit is filed, is 50 mg/mile of NOx for
"FTP Style" driving, (i.e., city driving).

"The RAM 1500 emits an average of 159 mg/mile of NOx and a maximum
of 1,283 on flat roads, and on hills 222 mg/mile of NOx with a
maximum of 1,859 mg/mile," the complaint states.  "On highway
driving the average was 232 mg/mile and a maximum of 1,615 mg/mile
of NOx, compared to the 70 mg/mile standard. On hills the numbers
are 353 and 3,240 mg/mile."

The firm's testing also revealed a defeat device triggered by
ambient temperature that significantly diminishes the performance
of the NOx emission reduction system, with ambient threshold
temperatures above approximately 95 F and below 40-50 F.  NOx
emissions increase by a factor of 10 when above or below these
threshold temperatures, the suit states.  Testing also revealed
the presence of a defeat device when ascending hills, as the
emission control system appears to be significantly diminished
after a short period of steady driving on hills.

In its own words, FCA claims that "the Bosch emissions control
system helps ensure that virtually no particulates and minimal
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) exit the tailpipe."

The suit's named plaintiff representing the proposed class of
consumers purchased a new model year 2016 Dodge RAM 1500 EcoDiesel
from Hilltop Chrysler Jeep Dodge, an authorized FCA dealer in
Richmond, California based on the mistaken belief that the vehicle
was a "clean diesel," complied with U.S. emissions standards and
was properly EPA-certified.  The suit states that in unknowingly
purchasing a vehicle without proper emission controls, the
plaintiff has suffered out-of-pocket losses, cost of future
attempted repairs and diminished value of his vehicle.

Hagens Berman is one of the most successful class-action law firms
in the U.S. and has taken on General Motors, Volkswagen, Ford,
Toyota, Hyundai, Kia and other automakers for consumers. The law
firm is also leading national charges against VW, Mercedes and GM
for use of diesel emissions-cheating software.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit on behalf of owners
and lessees of Dodge RAM 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel
vehicles.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.


FIRST BANCSHARES: Lifshitz & Miller Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz & Miller, a securities class action law firm focused on
representing shareholders nationwide, on Dec. 1 disclosed that on
November 9, 2016, Lifshitz & Miller filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders of The First Bancshares,
Inc. (FBMS) ("First Bancshares" or the "Company") for possible
corporate misconduct and violations of federal securities laws in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
Case No. 2:16-cv-194-KS-MTP.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Lifshitz & Miller.  If you are a First Bancshares investor, and
would like additional information about our investigation, please
complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz,
Esq. by telephone at (516) 493-9780 or e-mail at
info@jlclasslaw.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The lawsuit alleges that First Bancshares and members of the
Company's board of directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated by
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by issuing materially
incomplete and misleading information in documents related to the
Company's October 12, 2016 private placement (the "Private
Placement") of mandatorily convertible non-cumulative, non-voting,
perpetual Series E Preferred Stock with certain Company insiders,
among others.  The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all
shareholders of First Bancshares who owned shares of the Company
prior to October 12, 2016 announcement of the Private Placement.

Lead plaintiff deadline is January 30, 2017.

Lifshitz & Miller represents investors in the prosecution of
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation in
state and federal courts across the country.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces 179 Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that Forest Laboratories and its affiliates are defendants
in approximately 179 actions alleging that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R)
caused various birth defects. Several of the cases involve
multiple minor-plaintiffs.

The majority of these actions have been consolidated in state
court in Missouri where one case is set for trial in May 2017.
There are also four matters pending in state court in New Jersey
where one case is set for trial in February 2017.  There are birth
defect cases pending in other jurisdictions, none of which are set
for trial.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) cases and maintains product liability
insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently
uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not
provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


FRESH & EASY: Court Invalidates Employer's Arbitration Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Cohan, Esq. -- acohan@williamsmullen.com -- and Laura
Windsor, Esq. -- lwindsor@williamsmullen.com -- of Williams
Mullen, in an article for JDSupra, reports that many companies
require their employees to sign employment agreements in which the
employees agree that any claims they have against the company,
including class action claims, will be decided only through
private arbitration and not by a judge or jury.  In a recent
decision, Diana Chan v. Fresh & Easy, LLC et al., a federal judge
presiding over an adversary proceeding in Chapter 11 bankruptcy
ruled that an employment arbitration agreement containing a class
action waiver violated the National Labor Relations Act.  In doing
so, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court invalidated the employer's
arbitration agreement in its entirety and permitted the employee's
claims to remain in federal court.

Among other things, the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")
gives employees the right to self-organize, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively, and to engage
in other "concerted activities" for the purpose of collective
bargaining.  In enacting the NLRA, Congress aimed to equalize the
bargaining power of employees with that of their employers by
allowing employees to engage in collective bargaining.
Accordingly, the primary goal of the NLRA is to protect the right
of employees to act collectively.

In Fresh & Easy, Diana Chan filed a lawsuit against her former
employer, Fresh & Easy, LLC, alleging that the company violated
the U.S. Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN
Act") by failing to give the required sixty (60) days advance
notice of plant closures and mass layoffs before the company
closed its grocery store chain.  While employed by Fresh & Easy,
Ms. Chan signed an employment agreement that required her to
arbitrate all employment-related disputes with her employer and
that specifically prohibited her from bringing a class action
lawsuit against the company in court.  After Ms. Chan filed a
class action WARN Act lawsuit against Fresh & Easy in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
former employees, the company moved to dismiss the complaint and
asked the court to compel Ms. Chan to pursue arbitration instead.
Ms. Chan opposed her former employer's bid for arbitration on the
grounds that the contractual requirement for Fresh & Easy
employees to waive their rights to bring class action claims
against their employer violated the NLRA.

The Court agreed with Ms. Chan and found that Fresh & Easy's
arbitration agreement violated the NLRA because the provision
barring Ms. Chan's right to file a class action lawsuit infringed
on her ability to engage in collective bargaining activities.  The
Court ruled that the right of an employee to file a class action
is a substantive right protected by Section 7 of the NLRA, and not
a procedural tool, as Fresh & Easy had argued.  The Court also
found that the class waiver provision fell under the Federal
Arbitration Act's ("FAA") savings clause.  While the FAA requires
courts to "rigorously enforce" arbitration agreements, the FAA's
savings clause excludes from the Act's coverage all contracts that
are subject to common law contract defenses, including illegality.
Here, the Court found that the FAA did not mandate enforcement of
the arbitration agreement because the agreement contained an
illegal provision -- the class action waiver.

The Court went on to find that the employment agreement as a whole
was void and invalid.  The Court refused to sever the class action
waiver provision from the arbitration agreement and enforce the
remainder of the agreement because it found that the waiver
provision was an essential component of the contract.  Notably,
the Court reached such a conclusion notwithstanding the presence
of a severability clause in the arbitration agreement, which
provided that the remaining agreement would remain in force even
if a portion of the agreement was found to be unenforceable.

The Court's decision in Fresh & Easy highlights a developing split
between the U.S. Circuit Courts on the issue of whether class
actions are procedural or substantive tools and, thus, whether
class action waiver provisions in employment arbitration
agreements violate the NLRA.  The Third, Seventh, and Ninth
Circuits, as well as the National Labor Relations Board, seem to
take the approach that class actions are substantive elements of a
lawsuit, and thus that waivers thereof violate the NLRA, while the
Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits view such collective litigation
as a procedural mechanism.  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
the federal court covering Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Maryland, and West Virginia, has yet to take a stand on
this issue.  Given the federal Circuit Court split, it is likely
that this issue will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme
Court.  For now, the implications of the Fresh & Easy Court's
ruling, as well as others like it which call into question the
legality of class action waivers in arbitration agreements, may
prompt employers to reconsider their use of arbitration agreements
with class action waivers.


FUNDAMENTAL LABOR: Faces "Tonge" Suit in Eastern District of Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fundamental Labor
Strategies, Inc. The case is entitled CHRISTINE TONGE, ON BEHALF
OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
FUNDAMENTAL LABOR STRATEGIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-06310-GAM (E.D. Pa., Dec. 6, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. Gerald A. Mchugh.

Fundamental Labor is a consulting firm that examines
transportation operations to address and solve fundamental motor
carrier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard H. Kim, Esq.
          THE KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          1500 Market Street
          Centre Square West, Suite W-3110
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
          Telephone: (855) 996 6342
          E-mail: rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com


HANOVER INSURANCE: Summary Judgment Bid Stayed Pending Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
summary judgment motion has been stayed pending additional
discovery in the Durand Litigation.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The
named plaintiff, a former employee of our former life insurance
and annuity business who received a lump sum distribution from the
Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the time of
her separation from the company, claims that she and others
similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum
distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and
the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The
plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and
those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an
additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value
of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the
lump sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65
("whipsaw claim").

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009.  Two of the
three new claims set forth in the Amended Complaint were dismissed
by the District Court, which action was upheld in November 2015 by
the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.  The District Court,
however, did allow to stand the portion of the Amended Complaint
which set forth claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary
duty and failure to meet notice requirements arising under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") from the
various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of
which plaintiffs complain, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw"
claim that remained in the case.

On December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a
class to bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty
claims consisting of all persons who received a lump sum
distribution between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003. The
Company filed a summary judgment motion, prior to the decision on
the appeal, that was based on the statute of limitations and seeks
to dismiss the subclass of plaintiffs who received lump sum
distributions prior to March 13, 2002.  This summary judgment
motion has been stayed pending additional discovery.

At this time, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable
estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability if the
outcome of the suit is unfavorable. The statute of limitations
applicable to the sub-class consisting of all persons who received
lump sum distributions between March 1, 1997 and March 12, 2002
has not yet been finally determined, and the extent of potential
liability, if any, will depend on this determination. In addition,
assuming for these purposes that the plaintiffs prevail with
respect to claims that benefits accrued or payable under the Plan
were understated, then there are numerous possible theories and
other variables upon which any revised calculation of benefits as
requested under plaintiffs' claims could be based. Any adverse
judgment in this case against the Plan would be expected to create
a liability for the Plan, with resulting effects on the Plan's
assets available to pay benefits. The Company's future required
funding of the Plan could also be impacted by such a liability.


HERTZ CORPORATION: "Gale" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Brianne Gale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Hertz Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
8:16-cv-03315 (M.D. Fla., December 3, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly, non-exempt manager
associate working from several locations throughout her
employment. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant refused to
pay overtime wages yet placed her in the position of being forced
to perform work off the clock in order to complete her job duties
and satisfy her superiors. Her primary work duties involved
customer service, paperwork, picking up customers, washing
vehicles, running the office and assisting the other managers.

Defendant owns car rental facilities and operates from an office
in Jacksonville, Florida located at 11818 High desert Court,
Jacksonville, FL, from where Plaintiff reported and was assigned.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      18801 N. Dale Mabry Hwy. #563
      Lutz, FL 33548
      Tel: (813) 639-9366
      Fax (813) 639-9376
      Email: MLF@feldmanlegal.us


HOME FAMILY: "Atakhanova" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Nazokat Atakhanova, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Home Family Care Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06707, (E.D. N.Y., December 4, 2016),
seeks compensatory damages, liquidated and/or punitive damages for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation and spread-of-
hours premium, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief as
the Court deems just and proper pursuant to New York Labor Laws.

Defendant operates a home health care agency where Plaintiff was
employed as a home health aide. Atakhanova claims to have been
denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP P.C.
      1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd floor
      Brooklyn, NY 10006
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


HOMEALITY LLC: "Kilpatrick" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
FELECIA KILPATRICK and MARY EASON, Individually and on behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs.  HOMEALITY, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:16-cv- 885- SWW, seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant employed Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective as home
healthcare workers who provided companionship services for the
elderly, ill or disabled.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     Steve Rauls, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shacleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
     E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Philip Bohrer, Esq.
     Scott E. Brady, Esq.
     BOHRER BRADY, LLC
     8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
     Baton Rouge, LA 70809
     Phone: (225) 925-5297
     Fax: (225) 231-7000
     E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
             scott@bohrerbrady.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Faces Suit Over Chemical Leak at Geismar Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooling Post reports that seven local residents are reported to be
suing Honeywell after a chemical leak at its Geismar, Louisiana,
plant in August.

Louisiana's KSLA TV station has reported that litigants, all from
Iberville Parish, say they suffered "fear, fright, and
inconvenience" due to the leak of sulphuric acid on August 13.
The Honeywell plant was built in 1967 and produces several
chemical products, including fluorocarbon refrigerants.  The plant
is home to a new new, high-volume R1234yf manufacturing plant.

KSLA TV were alerted to the class action after receiving a
subpoena on Dec. 1, from attorneys representing the plaintiffs,
requesting copies of its news reports of the incident.

August's incident lasted for about six hours, reports at the time
suggesting two leaks -- one in the morning and another later in
the day.  The leak sent out a white fog of sulphuric acid that
blew northwest toward Iberville Parish.

Residents in the area were ordered to stay indoors, keep their
windows closed, and turn off their air conditioners until the leak
was stopped.

Honeywell has said it will defend the action, saying that it did
not believe the leak posed a threat to people or the environment.


INSTACART: Group of Workers Files Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Caroline O'Donovan, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that
Instacart is being sued by a group of workers -- again.

Brought by Arns Law Firm -- the same firm whose class action suit
against the grocery delivery company was thrown out in October
over an arbitration agreement -- the new suit was filed on behalf
of six named plaintiffs.  It alleges that people who worked for
Instacart as independent contractors should have been classified
as employees and are owed repayment for minimum wage, overtime,
expenses and more.  The class could include as many as 14,000
workers from all over the country, the suit alleges, and the
amount owed "far exceeds $5,000,000 in the aggregate."

"The shoppers' and drivers' services are fully integrated into
Instacart's business, and without them, Instacart's business would
not exist," the suit reads.  "Instacart voluntarily and knowingly
misclassified Plaintiffs and other Instacart shoppers as
independent contractors for the purpose of avoiding the
significant responsibilities associated with the employer/employee
relationship."

A spokesperson for Instacart said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

The suit notes that Instacart did reclassify a portion of its
workforce as employees in response to regulatory pressure. Since
June 2015, Instacart workers who work exclusively inside grocery
stores have been employees of the company; only workers who also
deliver groceries in their own cars are considered independent
contractors.  The suit argues that Instacart, because it did
previously agree to reclassify some workers, "knew and/or
recklessly disregarded that it was misclassifying its Shoppers
from the outset."  It also claims that the IRS and labor
commissions in New York and Colorado back up this finding.

In addition to the larger worker misclassification issue, the suit
also touches on earnings.  It alleges that online advertisements
posted by Instacart promised workers could earn "up to $25 an
hour," though the company had enough data to know "it was
impossible to earn that hourly rate consistently." The suit also
claims that Instacart knowingly duped prospective workers.  To
support this argument, it points to a livestreamed August 2015
all-hands meeting in which "managers Susie Sun, Michelle
Suwuannukul, and Heather Wake instructed Operations Associates to
continue running the advertisements that represented that
Instacart Shoppers could make a certain amount of money per hour
even though they were aware that Shoppers were making an average
hourly rate that was well below the advertised rate."

In recent months, Instacart workers have clashed with management
over changes to their pay structure.  In September, the company
replaced in-app tips (paid directly to individual shoppers who
delivered an order) with a service fee that is pooled and
distributed among workers at Instacart's discretion.  As BuzzFeed
News has previously reported, CEO Apoorva Mehta said the change is
necessary to the companies continued growth.  But high-earning
shoppers who shared their pay stubs with BuzzFeed News estimated
the changes reduced their pay by between 30 and 40 percent.
Frustrated workers have repeatedly threatened to strike and picket
the company, and have been waging an informational campaign to
explain the change to customers.

The lawsuit brought against Instacart on Dec. 2 cites the tip
issue as proof that the company has a level of control over
independent contractor earnings commensurate with that of an
employer.  It also argues that, per the Fair Labor Standards Act,
any optional amount paid by a customer in addition to charges for
a service should be considered a tip.

For the plaintiffs in this newest suit, Instacart's arbitration
agreement remains a thorny issue.  The lawyers argue, as they did
before the last suit was thrown out, that the arbitration clause
workers agreed to when they signed up with Instacart should be
considered irrelevant because of an August ruling by a judge in a
separate case that set a new precedent on the issue of class
action waivers.

Companies like Uber and Lyft have both successfully used the
threat of arbitration to push settlements of respective high-
profile class action lawsuits brought against them by drivers,
suggesting the issue could still be an impediment to the workers'
case against Instacart.

                           *     *     *

Cyrus Farivar, writing for Ars Technica, reports that on Dec. 1,
12 Instacart "shoppers" across 11 states filed a proposed US
federal class-action lawsuit against the San Francisco startup,
alleging a breach of state and federal labor laws.

The Instacart lawsuit is one of several currently targeting
so-called "sharing economy" startups, and they all get at the same
question: can workers be accurately classified as independent
contractors, or should they properly be designated as employees?
In Instacart's case, customers order groceries online, but those
groceries are then picked up and delivered by the company's
shoppers.  So, should those shoppers be treated as employees?

Classifying such workers as employees rather than contractors
would entitle them to a number of benefits under federal law. This
includes unemployment benefits, workers' compensation, the right
to unionize, and, most importantly, the right to seek
reimbursement for mileage and tips.  This reclassification would
also incur new and significant costs for Instacart and other
affected companies, including Uber and Lyft.  An on-demand
cleaning service, Homejoy, shut down last year just months after
it was hit with a similar labor lawsuit.

The three labor law experts with whom Ars spoke agreed that this
underlying sharing economy issue would not be resolved anytime
soon.  It may, they said, have to be taken up by the Supreme Court
at some point.

"Instacart -- like Uber -- seems to be clearly misclassifying
their workers," Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of
California, Hastings, told Ars by e-mail.  She continued:

In the Uber case, thus far, no class action has effectively forced
enforcement, despite any number of cases being filed in different
state and federal courts and a strong case that Uber is an
employer.  Perhaps taking a lesson from the Uber litigation, this
Instacart case takes a new approach: alleging misclassification
across jurisdictions and across wage protection laws.  A drawback
of this strategy is that each state law has to be addressed on its
own terms.  This may -- or may not -- elongate and complicate the
litigation.

In the new lawsuit, called Husting v. Maplebear dba Instacart, all
of the plaintiffs allege that they did not receive reimbursement
for work-related expenses, did not receive proper overtime pay,
and "regularly" were not paid at or above minimum wage.

As the civil complaint states:

Plaintiffs were required to make themselves available to perform
work within a predetermined range of time each day but were not
compensated in a manner that guaranteed they were compensated at
or above the applicable minimum wage during those hours.  During
nonproductive time, or time during which Plaintiffs were required
to make themselves available for work but were not given an
assignment, Plaintiffs were not compensated in any manner
whatsoever.  On various occasions during the relevant period,
Plaintiffs spent sometimes up to four hours of a designated shift
sitting in their cars in a grocery store parking lot awaiting
direction from Instacart.  Plaintiffs were not compensated for
this time in any manner.

The San Francisco-based lawyers that brought this case also filed
a similar lawsuit (Cobarruviaz v. Maplebear dba Instacart) in
2015.  That suit remains technically pending, but was ordered to
arbitration.

This new case, with new plaintiffs, takes into account an August
2016 decision by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which found
that employees cannot be forced into binding arbitration, a
private legal process that generally favors corporations and makes
collective cases (class actions) all but impossible.  The main
difference, of course, between the 9th Circuit's ruling and this
new case, Husting, is that Instacart will likely argue that the
plaintiffs are not, in fact, employees.

Rebecca Silliman, an Instacart spokeswoman, e-mailed that the
company would not "comment on anything pending."

Holding feet to the fire?

In June 2015 Instacart took the unusual step of allowing its
delivery staff, which until then was comprised entirely of
contractors, the option to become part-time workers capped at 30
hours per week.

As Ars reported at the time, Instacart spokeswoman Andrea Saul
specifically denied that the 30-hour cutoff was designed to avoid
providing health care to shoppers and drivers under the Affordable
Care Act (ACA), in which full-time employment is defined as "an
employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service
per week."  The ACA, among other things, requires that employers
with more than 50 employees provide health care to their workers
and their families.

Instacart's own office-based full-time jobs boast "comprehensive
health, dental, and vision coverage" and a "smorgasbord of food
while you work, including lunch and dinner catered daily,"
according to company listings. In-store jobs (the overwhelming
majority of the company's workforce) only offer "$15/hr flat rate
pay" and boast "flexible hours--no need to work the same schedule
every week!"

Miriam Cherry, a labor law professor at Saint Louis University,
said the following to Ars in an email:

"The issue I have the most trouble with here is that Instacart did
do a major PR blitz during the first lawsuit, saying that they
were going to start moving the workers into employee positions.
Now it looks like they didn't do that, despite all the positive PR
that they received from that announcement.  Maybe the plaintiffs
in this go-round are trying to hold them to some of their promises
that they made in the press."


INTELIQUENT: Law Firm Investigates Potential Fiduciary Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, on Dec. 5 disclosed that it is
investigating potential claims against the Board of Directors of
Inteliquent, Inc. ("Inteliquent" or "the Company") for possible
breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in
connection with the sale of the Company to affiliates of private
equity firm GTCR, LLC. ("GTCR").

Click here to learn more
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/inteliquent-inc-nasdaq-iqnt/,or
call: 877-534-2590.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

Under the terms of the transaction, Inteliquent shareholders will
receive only $23.00 in cash for each share of Inteliquent stock
they own.  The investigation concerns whether the Board of
Inteliquent breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders and
whether GTCR is underpaying for the Company.  The transaction may
undervalue the Company and would result in no real gain for many
Inteliquent shareholders.  For example, Inteliquent stock traded
at $22.52 per share on October 28, 2015 and analyst has set a
$24.00 per share price target for Inteliquent stock.

If you own shares of Inteliquent stock and wish to discuss the
legal ramifications of the investigation, or have any questions,
you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who
will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your
questions.  You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire or Evan J.
Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510,
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by visiting
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/inteliquent-inc-nasdaq-iqnt/,or
calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC -- http://www.brodskysmith.com-- is a
litigation law firm with extensive expertise representing
shareholders throughout the nation in securities and class action
lawsuits.  The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been appointed by
numerous courts throughout the country to serve as lead counsel in
class actions and have successfully recovered millions of dollars
for our clients and shareholders.


JACKSON HEWITT: Court Sends "Hollingsworth" Suit to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Philip G. Reinhard of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendants'
motion to compel arbitration of, and stay proceedings on,
Hollingsworth's claims in the case captioned, Phil Hollingsworth,
Plaintiff, v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16
C 50059 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs, Phil Hollingsworth and Steve Yankee, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring the
putative class action against defendants, Jackson Hewitt Inc.
(Jackson Hewitt), American Express Co. (AmEx), and Restaurant.com,
Inc. (Restaurant). Count I of the first amended complaint alleges
claims by Hollingsworth (and those similarly situated) against all
defendants. Count II alleges claims by Yankee (and those similarly
situated) against only Jackson Hewitt. Both counts allege
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227, et seq. (TCPA).

Hollingsworth entered into a tax preparation contract with Jackson
Hewitt on February 23, 2015. Hollingsworth requested an "Assisted
Refund" (AR). The AR program was provided through Republic Bank &
Trust Co. (Bank). Hollingsworth executed an assisted refund
agreement (Agreement) with the Bank, also on February 23, 2015.
The Agreement contains an arbitration provision.

Defendants move to compel arbitration and stay proceedings as to
Hollingsworth's claims.

Hollingsworth argues that AmEx and Restaurant cannot compel
arbitration of the claims against them as Plaintiff had no
agreement with them at all much less one compelling arbitration.
He contends that while Jackson Hewitt is at least named in the
arbitration provision, AmEx and Restaurant are not and, therefore,
lack standing to enforce the arbitration provision.

In his Order dated November 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/YihXGX from Leagle.com, Judge Reinhard held that
Kentucky allows a non-signatory to enforce an arbitration
agreement against a signatory under a theory of equitable estoppel
"when the signatory alleges substantially interdependent and
concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of
the signatories to the contract."

Phil Hollingsworth is represented by Katherine Ann Rehan, Esq.
Katherine.rehan@illinoisattorney.com --  KATHERINA A. REHAN
ATTORNY AT LAW; and by:

      Stephen F. Taylor, Esq.
      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      06987, 43 Danbury Rd,
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Tel: (855)301-2100

Jackson Hewitt Inc., et al. are represented by Joseph E. Hopkins,
Esq. -- joseph.hopkins@lockelord.com -- Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk,
Esq. -- martin.jaszczuk@lockelord.com -- and Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
-- keith.gibson@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD, LLP


JAY PEAK: Investors Seek Financial Records of Owner's Children
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Keays, writing for VTDigger, reports that investors in a
lawsuit who claim they were defrauded by Jay Peak's owner
Ariel Quiros say they want to look at the financial records of
those close to him.

Attorneys for investors in the class-action case, led by investor
Alexander Daccache of Brazil, seek access to records held by the
financial services company Raymond James for Mr. Quiros' daughter,
Nicole Quiros, his son, Ary Quiros, and Jong W. Choi, one of his
business partners.

"In light of the third parties' involvement with Quiros and JCM
(Jay Construction Management) -- a Quiros controlled entity
central to the alleged fraud -- what (Raymond James) knew about
these individual customers is relevant," Thomas Tucker Ronzetti,
an attorney for the investors, wrote in a recent filing.

Ary Quiros had operated Q Burke Mountain Resort in Vermont until
it was later seized by federal regulators in a civil lawsuit
brought by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed against
his father, who owned Q Burke at the time.  The "Q" has since been
dropped from resort's name, as well signs throughout the property
that had been emblazoned with the signature letter.

That lawsuit as well as one by the state of Vermont claim the
elder Quiros, owner of Q Resorts, a holding company that includes
Jay Peak, and William Stenger, former CEO at Jay Peak, misused
$200 million raised through the federal EB-5 visa program.  That
money was meant to fund development projects in Vermont's
Northeast Kingdom, including hotels at Jay Peak and Burke
Mountain.

Nicole Quiros, Ariel Quiros' daughter and an accountant, had been
married at the time to Joel Burstein, a branch manager at Raymond
James in Coral Gables, Florida.  The class-action lawsuit claims
Mr. Burstein helped Mr. Quiros set up a web of complex financial
transactions that were used in the fraud.

In addition to information about Nicole Quiros' account, the
attorneys for the investors are seeking from Raymond James an
email concerning her that contains her resume as an attachment.

"If the resume shows that Nicole Quiros worked for a Jay Peak or
Quiros-affiliated entity while married to Burstein," Mr. Ronzetti
wrote, "Burstein would have had an additional incentive to further
the Jay Peak fraud."

Jong Weon (Alex) Choi, a longtime business associate of Quiros,
was president and owner of Jay Construction Management, as well as
a director of Q Resorts, Mr. Ronzetti wrote in the recent filing.

He had also has served as a principal officer for AnC Bio Korea,
which transferred intellectual property rights to AnC Bio Vermont,
a company owned by Stenger, Quiros and Quiros' son, Ary, that had
been responsible for coordinating the construction and operation
of a proposed biotech facility in Newport that never materialized.

AnC Bio Vermont was banking heavily on EB-5 immigrant investors,
seeking $110 million from 220 foreign investors.  Investors in the
program, put up $500,000, plus an administrative fee, in qualified
projects.  If the project creates 10 jobs, the investor becomes
eligible for permanent U.S. residency.

Federal regulators in the lawsuit they filed in April called that
project "nearly a complete fraud."

The attorneys for the investors are also seeking documents
relating to an account belonging to an "individual (Raymond James)
wouldn't identify," but for which Ariel Quiros has power of
attorney.

"Given the manner in which Quiros funneled money through various
accounts, this additional account may be among them and show the
movement of funds that facilitated the Jay Peak fraud,"
Mr. Ronzetti wrote.

Ary and Nicole Quiros, as well as Choi, were not named as
defendants in the lawsuits by the state and federal regulators or
in the Daccache class-action case.

The Daccache class-action investors' lawsuit names as defendants
Ariel Quiros and Stenger, as well as Burstein and Raymond James,
and it is pending in federal court in Miami where Mr. Quiros' many
businesses are located.

Attorneys for Raymond James could not be reached on Nov. 29 for
comment.

Meanwhile, Stenger has settled his case with the SEC, and the
state action against him remains pending. Quiros, who has denied
any wrongdoing, is contesting both the state and federal SEC
lawsuits.

The judge in the SEC case issued a strongly worded preliminary
injunction against Mr. Quiros, calling him the "architect" of the
fraud scheme.  The judge froze his assets related to the case and
barred him from participating in the EB-5.

According to the Daccache lawsuit, the action was brought on
behalf of a proposed class of 836 people who invested more than
$400 million in the series of projects headed by Quiros and
Stenger over eight years in northern Vermont as part of the
federal EB-5 immigrant investor program.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Class Suits Transferred to New Jersey Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that two class action
lawsuits have been transferred to the United States District Court
for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a newly created
federal multi-district litigation.

In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal
court, one in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and one in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson
and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Inc.), alleging violations of state consumer
fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health risks
associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder and
JOHNSON'S(R) Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by the
Company). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages;
neither includes a claim for personal injuries.

In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a
newly created federal multi-district litigation.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Contact Lens Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit by contact lens
patients.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI), other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix
the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that
the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain
distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some
contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

All of the class action cases were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June
2015.

The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action complaint in
November 2015, and in December 2015, JJVCI and other defendants
filed motions to dismiss. In June 2016, the Court denied the
motions to dismiss.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit by Two Third-Party Payors Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit by two third-party payors remains pending.

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC,
Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as
certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly
marketed and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than
less expensive alternative medications while failing to fully
disclose its risks. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: OCD's Motion for Summary Judgment Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that Ortho-Clinical
Diagnostics, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment remains pending.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the
divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that
may result from these cases.

In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion filed by the
plaintiffs for class certification.

In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the class certification ruling and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings.

In October 2015, the District Court again granted the motion by
the plaintiffs for class certification.

In July 2016, OCD filed a motion for summary judgment.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


JOS. A. BANK: Plaintiff Slapped with $40,000 Sanction
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California sanctioned Plaintiff
for acting in bad faith in the case captioned, DAVID M. LUCAS, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 14cv1631-LAB (JLB)(S.D. Cal.).

David Lucas sued Joseph A. Bank for allegedly inflating suit
prices before offering supposed "buy one, get one free" sales.
Hassan Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei and Stuart Scott of
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber represented David M. Lucas in the
putative class action. Lucas told a firm representative with whom
he first spoke that he remembered buying three suits for about
$1,000.

The allegations against Joseph A. Bank fell apart when it became
clear to all that Lucas, who had been designated lead plaintiff,
had lied about ever buying suits from Joseph A. Bank.

Plaintiffs' counsel moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims with
prejudice and to withdraw from representing Lucas owing to ethical
concerns.

Joseph A. Bank moved for sanctions against Lucas and his
attorneys. They also obtained an order from the magistrate judge
compelling plaintiffs' counsel to produce their communications
with Lucas.

In his Order dated November 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/JUX8vG from Leagle.com, Judge Burns found by clear
and convincing evidence that Lucas acted in bad faith, and also
that he acted intentionally and willfully; and ordered Lucas to
pay Joseph A. Bank $40,000.

David M. Lucas is represented by Daniel Frech, Esq. --
dfrech@spanglaw.com -- and Stuart Edward Scott, Esq. --
sscott@spanglaw.com -- SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP -- Hassan
Ali Zavareei, Esq. -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Jeffrey Douglas
Kaliel, Esq. -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- and Sophia Goren, Esq. --
sgoren@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. is represented by E. Alex Beroukhim,
Esq. -- alex.beroukhim@aporter.com -- and James F. Speyer, Esq.
-- james.speyer@aporter.com -- ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP


KAHOOTS INC: Pizzaro Sues Over Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Pizzaro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kahoots, Inc., Case No. BC642693 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 5, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to remove architectural and communication barriers in existing
stores, denying equal access to disabled persons.

Kahoots, Inc. offers products and services for dogs, cats, other
pets, and livestock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877)534-2590
      Facsimile: (310)247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


LA PIZZA: Faces "Zarate" Suit Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Zarate, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. La Pizza Loca, Inc., La Pizza Loca Distribution, Inc.,
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC642714 (Cal. Super.
Ct., December 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid compensation
arising from Defendants' failure to provide employees meal and
rest periods.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: mmatem@matenilawgroup.com
              tagore@maternlawgroup.com


LANNETT COMPANY: Defendant in 19 Digoxin Price-Fixing Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and
certain competitors have been named as defendants in 19 lawsuits
filed in 2016 alleging that the Company and certain generic
pharmaceutical manufacturers have conspired to fix prices of
generic digoxin and doxycycline.  There is a proceeding before the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
regarding centralization of all of these related cases.  Oral
argument was held on July 28, 2016.  The Panel has not yet made a
decision.

The Company believes that it acted in compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations.  Accordingly, the Company
disputes the allegations set forth in these class actions.  The
Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these
lawsuits will have a significant impact on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

Lannett Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture,
package, market and distribute solid oral and extended release
(tablets and capsules), topical, nasal and oral solution finished
dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic
areas.  Certain of these products are manufactured by others and
distributed by the Company, most notably under the Jerome Stevens
Distribution Agreement.  The Company also manufactures active
pharmaceutical ingredients through its Cody Laboratories, Inc.
subsidiary, providing a vertical integration benefit.


LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: 6th Cir. Sends "Mason" Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin of the Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to remand to state
court the case captioned, JENNIFER MASON, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWNAM, P.C., a Michigan
corporation; LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWNAM, INC., a Texas
corporation, Defendants-Appellants, LEO A. DALY COMPANY, a
Nebraska corporation, Defendant, Case No. 16-2313 (6th  Cir.).

The class suit alleges state-law professional negligence.  It
arises out of the Flint, Michigan water crisis, a public health
disaster that drew national media coverage when the City of Flint
decided to supply water to its residents using the Flint River
without implementing necessary anti-corrosion measures.

In April 2013, the City of Flint, Michigan, decided to switch its
primary drinking water provider from the Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department ("DWSD") to the newly formed Karegnondi Water
Authority ("KWA"). The KWA would not be operational for another
three years, however, so Flint needed an interim source of
drinking water.

The City turned to Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc., a Texas-based
corporation that touted itself as a "national leader in the heavy
civil infrastructure engineering industry," and its Michigan-based
affiliate, Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, P.C. for assistance. On
June 26, 2013, the City entered into a contract with defendants
for design engineering services in connection with rehabilitating
Flint's Water Treatment Plant.  On April 25, 2014, the City of
Flint began supplying its residents drinking water from the Flint
River. The harmful effects were as swift as they were severe.
Within days, residents complained of foul smelling and tasting
water. Within weeks, some residents' hair began to fall out and
their skin developed rashes. And within a year, there were
positive tests for E. coli, a spike in deaths from Legionnaires'
disease, and worst of all, reports of dangerously high blood lead
levels in Flint children.

On January 25, 2016, eight Flint residents filed suit in state
court, alleging one count of professional negligence against
defendants. Plaintiffs contended that defendants knew the Plant
required upgrades for lead contamination treatment, yet failed to
ensure such safeguards were implemented as part of the
rehabilitation, resulting in widespread personal injuries and
property damage. They sought relief on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated "residents and property owners in the
City of Flint" who used water from the Flint River from April 25,
2014, to the present day.

Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2).
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand to state court. They did not
contest the basic requirements for diversity jurisdiction under
CAFA. They argued instead that the mandatory "local controversy"
exception to CAFA jurisdiction applied.

The parties dispute whether plaintiffs' claim against defendants
(civil engineering companies responsible for upgrading Flint's
municipal water system) belongs in state court under this
exception. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand. It found that more than two-thirds of the putative class
members were likely Michigan citizens. The court also found that
LAN, P.C.'s (the Michigan defendant's) conduct formed a
significant basis of plaintiffs' claim because defendants'
engineering services were provided "through LAN, P.C."

On appeal, Defendants contest the district court's finding that
LAN, P.C.'s "alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the
claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class." 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(bb).

In the Opinion dated November 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/TtALX9 from Leagle.com, Judge Griffin agreed with
the district court that plaintiffs established the class
citizenship and significant basis requirements of the local
controversy exception to CAFA and that the statutory elements
Congress set forth to achieve that vision, the case exemplifies
the quintessential local controversy.

Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. is represented by:

      S. Vance Wittie, Esq.
      SEDGWICK LLP
      1717 Main St Ste 5400
      Dallas, TX 75201-7367
      Tel: (469)227-8200

Jennfer Mason, et al. are represented by Mark L. McAlpine, Esq.
-- mlmcalpine@mcalpinepc.com -- Jayson E. Blake, Esq. --
jeblake@mcalpinepc.com -- and Adam T. Schnatz, Esq. --
atschnatz@mcalpinepc.com -- MCALPINE PC


LOYALTYONE: Cancels Air Miles Rewards Expiry Policy Amid Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Drews, writing for News1130, reports that, you don't have to
worry about spending your expiring Air Miles.  The company behind
the program has reversed an incoming policy which would've seen
your miles become useless after five years.

LoyaltyOne, the company which runs Air Miles, cites uncertainty
with provincial governments either filing or threatening to file
lawsuits.  LoyaltyOne also notes the negative feedback it has
received.

The policy was announced about five years ago.  LoyaltyOne warned
collectors the first miles would expire December 31, 2016.  The
policy grabbed headlines again this year as people scrambled to
redeem their miles in time.

Patrick Sojka is the founder of Rewards Canada, a website focused
on consumer rewards programs.  He says it takes a long time to
save up enough for a flight.  "They advertise these dream rewards
that can take the average collector quite a few years to get to
and for some people, that's more than five years.  That's why this
has really become such an issue.  People, it's not like they
forgot about the Air Miles.  They've been active in the program
and they're trying to get to a goal and Air Miles was going to
stop them from reaching that goal."

Mr. Sojka says the news still might not sit well with collectors
who have spent their miles on something they weren't as interested
in.

Neera Garg from Vancouver is one of those collectors upset to
learn her Air Miles aren't going to expire after all.  She just
spent all she had.  "Hearing there was an expiry, I felt stressed
out because I spent so long and hard saving all these and I didn't
want to waste them.  Just two days ago I finally settled on just
booking a flight for me and a friend to go somewhere in July of
next year.  It wasn't necessary, but just to use them."

She says her father spent about 14,000 Air Miles recently on
random things like speakers and gifts for the grandkids just to
use them up.  Ms. Garg believes Air Miles should do more than
reverse the policy, something like a one-time bonus for
collectors.

There is a class action lawsuit filed against LoyaltyOne over the
expiry policy and the reversal won't guarantee the suit will be
dropped.  Lawyer Andrew Wilson -- wilsona@jssbarristers.ca
-- a partner with JSS Barristers in Calgary, is representing
class members.  He says there are issues which need to be worked
through.  "What about people who have redeemed their miles for
items that they didn't want simply to try and avoid them expiring?
People who had very long wait times and the frustration.  And with
that, people who thought they had ordered products and then were
advised later in time that they weren't available.  People who
weren't seeing items that they wanted.  Is that problem going to
be addressed?"

Mr. Wilson says he will be consulting on next steps with class
members.


M&T BANK: Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited Discovery Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, In Re
Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court,
District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR), the plaintiffs'
motion to modify the stay of discovery to allow for additional,
limited discovery pending before the Court.

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust Corporation, alleging that
Wilmington Trust Corporation's financial reporting and securities
filings were in violation of securities laws. The cases were
consolidated and Wilmington Trust Corporation moved to dismiss.

The Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust Corporation's
motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014.

Fact discovery commenced.

On April 13, 2016, the Court issued an order staying fact
discovery in the case pending completion of the trial in U.S. v.
Wilmington Trust Corp., et al.

On September 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the
stay of discovery in this matter to allow for additional, limited
discovery. The motion is currently pending before the Court.


MADISON COUNTY, IL: RLI Dropped as Defendant in Bid Rigging Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that victims of bid rigging at
auctions of former Madison County treasurer Fred Bathon can't sue
the holder of his $1 million surety bond, Illinois Supreme Court
Justices ruled on Dec. 1.

They affirmed lower courts that removed RLI Insurance from the
roster of defendants in a class action seeking to recover proceeds
of the bid rigging.

"As the appellate court noted, the issue in this case is not
whether RLI will ultimately be liable under the public official
bond," Justice James Kilbride wrote.

"Rather, the issue is whether plaintiffs have standing to pursue
RLI directly under the bond."

He wrote that only the people of the state of Illinois could
directly sue RLI.

Mr. Bathon's bond stated, "I do solemnly swear that I will support
the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will
faithfully discharge the duties of the office of county collector
according to the best of my ability."

He would void the bond if he performed all duties as the law
prescribes and delivered all books, papers and money to his
successor.

From 2005 to 2009, he favored certain bidders at annual auctions
of delinquent property taxes by inflating interest rates to the
legal limit of 18 percent.

He pleaded guilty in 2013, and served 17 months in federal prison.

Tax buyers Scott McLean, John Vassen, and Barrett Rochman pleaded
guilty and served sentences about as long as Mr. Bathon's.

The three tax buyers paid $25,000 fines, and Mr. Bathon paid
$20,000.

U.S. attorney Stephen Wigginton could have sought restitution but
decided that calculation of individual damages was impracticable.

Victims then sued the county, Mr. Bathon, auctioneer James Foley,
former county clerk Mark Von Dida, ten tax buyers, and RLI
Insurance.

RLI moved to dismiss the claim against it.

Clinton County associate judge Dennis Middendorff, who took the
case as visiting judge, granted the motion in 2014.

Fifth District appellate judges affirmed him last year.

By then, Judge Middendorff had retired and the case had passed to
Clinton County Associate Judge William Becker.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, with the same result.

"The proper claimant on a statutory public official bond is the
named obligee, unless the legislature has expressed in the
statutory language its intent to allow others to sue directly on
the bond," Justice Kilbride wrote.

He wrote that the Court found nothing indicating legislative
intent that private citizens might sue for damages on a public
official bond.

Ralph Kooy, Tim Eaton, and Jonathan Amarilio, all of Chicago,
represented RLI.

Aaron Weishaar of St. Louis represented plaintiffs.


MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Chemo Survivors Call Settlement Insulting
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Taekema, writing for Windsor Star, reports that many patients
who received diluted chemotherapy treatment crowded on Dec. 4 into
an informal town hall in Windsor to share tears, pain and anger at
the settlement they had been offered and the law firm that
arranged it.

Two-hundred-and-ninety cancer patients received diluted drugs at
Windsor Regional Hospital in 2012 and 2013 -- 71 of them have
already died.

After the news of the drug scandal broke, the Ontario government
assigned an expert to the case who concluded that there was "no
evidence of any malicious or deliberate drug-sparing dilution" by
Marchese Hospital Solutions, the firm that prepared the bags of
chemo drugs Cyclophosphamide or Gemcitabine.

In October, the more than 1,200 cancer patients who were treated
with diluted chemotherapy learned a settlement bargained in their
name would be broken down to as little as $1,500 each.

At the time, Louise Martens called it "a slap in the face."  So,
on Dec. 4, she and a few dozen other diluted chemo cancer
survivors along with loved ones of those who received the
treatment, but were lost to cancer gathered at the Moose Lodge in
Windsor to talk about next steps before the opt-out deadline of
Dec. 7.

Ms. Martens opened the floor to anyone who wanted to share their
thoughts and many did, some fighting back tears.

Colleen Campbell said her husband's cancer returned after he
received diluted treatment.

"I'm not saying he would be alive today . . . but to know if he
were to have lived 57 more days he would have made it to his
youngest son's wedding," she said, her voice shaking.  "How do we
put a dollar value on a day of living?"

Colleen Marentette, who was diagnosed with breast cancer at 46,
said she wasn't ready to opt out and was instead hoping to come to
a compromise that is fair to everyone involved.

Still, she said the fact that there are still so many unknowns
about who was harmed by insufficient treatment still causes her
pain.

"Has anyone considered the psychological anguish, the stress and
fear we have and will forever live with for the rest of our lives,
however long or short that will be?" she asked.

Many expressed how thankful they were to still be alive, including
Jeanne Omstead-Mullins who said even though she's "gone through
hell," she's still fighting.

"The lawyers are going to get $400,000, so they're happy with the
settlement," she said.  "We're going to get $1.50 per day for the
stress, the anguish and everything we've been through.  It's not
right."

At one point Ms. Martens stood up to explain that representatives
from Stutts Strosberg LLP, the firm that advocated for the
patients in the settlement, had expressed interest in attending.
But she had asked them to stay away to avoid "intimidation."

In an announcement about the proposed settlement in November,
Windsor lawyer Harvey Strosberg had stated: "This is not a good
settlement. Given the circumstances, this is an excellent
settlement."

Many at the meeting said they didn't feel the same way and called
the offer insulting.

Sarah Johnson, who is still battling breast cancer, called on the
law firm to reach out to all 1,200 members of the class-action
suit before the deadline to object.

"We didn't get to choose our lawyer, but we can choose to go to
court and fight," she said.  "This settlement is unjust and unfair
and our lawyers should be ashamed of themselves for pushing the
class to accept the offer or opt out."

A Windsor Superior Court judge is scheduled to consider the
settlement on Jan. 10 at 10:30 a.m.


MARS PETCARE: Moore, et al. File Suit Over Prescription Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA MOORE, GRETA L. ERVIN, RAFF ARANDO, NICHOLS SMITH, RENEE
EDGREN and CYNTHIA WELTON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARS PETCARE US, INC.; NESTLE
PURINA PETCARE COMPANY; HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC.; PETSMART,
INC.; MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. D/B/A BANFIELD
PET HOSPITAL; BLUEPEARL VET, LLC, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-07001-
KAW (N.D. Cal., December 7, 2016), alleges that Defendants'
marketing, labeling, and/or sale of prescription pet food is
deceptive, collusive, and in violation of federal antitrust law
and California consumer-protection law.

Defendants manufacture, market, and sell one or more lines of pet
food that are sold at retail by "prescription."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
     Matthew D. Davis, Esq.
     Spencer J. Pahlke, Esq.
     WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
     650 California Street, 26th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94108-2615
     Phone: (415) 981-7210
     Fax: (415) 391-6965
     E-mail: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
             mdavis@walkuplawoffice.com
             spahlke@walkuplawoffice.com

        - and -

     Daniel Shulman, Esq.
     Julia Dayton Klein, Esq.
     GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY, & BENNETT, P.A.
     80 South Eight Street, Suite 500
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 632-3335
     Fax: (612) 632-4335
     E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com
             julia.daytonklein@gpmlaw.com

        - and -

     Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
     Wade H. Tomlinson III, Esq.
     Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq.
     POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
     3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300
     Atlanta, GA 30326
     Phone: (404) 523-7706
     Fax: (404) 524-1648
     E-mail: mmcglamry@pmkm.com
             triptomlinson@pmkm.com
             kimjohnson@pmkm.com

        - and -

     Lynwood P. Evans, Esq.
     Edward J. Coyne III, Esq.
     Jeremy M. Wilson, Esq.
     WARD AND SMITH, P.A.
     127 Racine Drive
     Wilmington, NC 28403
     Phone: (910) 794-4800
     Fax: (910) 794-4877
     E-mail: lpe@wardandsmith.com
             ejcoyne@wardandsmith.com
             jw@wardandsmith.com


MARSHALL SQUARE: Residents' Property Damage Cases Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Wideman, writing for WJBF, reports that several families who
filed a lawsuit against Marshall Square after going up in flames
in June of 2015, can close this chapter of their lives.

Augusta attorney Sam Nicholson, who represents several of the
residents, tells NewsChannel 6 many of those property damage cases
were resolved on Dec. 1.  The case against the owners of Marshall
Square started as a class action lawsuit filed by the people
living at the retirement village.  Mr. Nicholson told NewsChannel
6, the case changed somewhat and ended up as several lawsuits with
several different plaintiffs.

Marshall square lawsuits are far from over, there are still more
property damage cases to resolve since there is no longer class
action status.  There is a lawsuit also filed by Rheta Cadle who
was rescued from the fire and a suit filed by the family of
Dorothy Carpenter, who died in the fire.


MASSACHUSETTS: Troopers File Female, Minority Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Ramos, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a lawsuit
brought by four current and former troopers is alleging that the
Massachusetts State Police routinely pass over female and minority
troopers for promotion, and exile those who do earn advancement to
far-flung barracks and overnight shifts.

Three women, with about 75 years of combined service time, and a
former trooper who is black and said he retired in the face of
discrimination, are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was
filed in August and updated in November.

The suit describes an ongoing pattern of alleged discrimination in
a force that is overwhelmingly male and white.  Many high-ranking
and better-paying jobs are not posted publicly, the suit alleges,
and those that are posted are quickly filled by white, male
candidates whose qualifications were often less impressive than
women and minority candidates who sought the same jobs.

Discrimination within the State Police "is getting worse over
time," wrote Lisa Brodeur-McGan, the Springfield lawyer
representing the troopers.

In response, State Police spokesman David Procopio said by e-mail
that the department "has promoted, and continually seeks to
promote, qualified women and officers of color; accordingly, we
will present a vigorous response to the lawsuit."

"The department actively looks for opportunities to make
discretionary promotions or assignments for qualified women and
persons of color," Mr. Procopio said.

Court records show the lawsuit was initially filed in August in
Suffolk Superior Court with only one named plaintiff -- Lisa
Butner, a lieutenant whose career with the State Police began in
1992.  The more recent complaint, filed in November, added three
other troopers as plaintiffs.

The new complaint, which alleges that many other troopers have not
come forward for fear of retaliation, also lists "all similarly
situated individuals" as plaintiffs -- a precursor to a potential
class action.

Ms. Butner, who joined the State Police as part of the merger with
the Metro Police Department, has sued the department before.

In 1997, she was one of four female troopers who sued the State
Police over a policy that prohibited pregnant troopers from
operating cruisers, wearing uniforms, working overtime, and
interacting with the public.

In 2002, the troopers won $1 million in damages and an additional
$300,000 for emotional distress caused by the policy, which
required troopers who became pregnant to report it as an "injury"
on a form at the human resources office and agree to diminished
duties -- or be sent home without pay.

Ms. Butner, who is black, applied for three internal affairs
positions in 2013, according to the lawsuit.  Each allegedly went
to a white man of equal or lesser experience.

At a February 2014 meeting with then-commander Colonel Timothy
Alben, Ms. Butner raised concerns about diversity in the upper
ranks and throughout the State Police, according to the lawsuit.

The meeting touched on the allegedly discriminatory effects of a
rule that grants two points on promotional exams to military
veterans, according to the lawsuit, disadvantaging women and
minorities.

Lieutenant Lisa Butner applied for three internal affairs
positions in 2013, according to the lawsuit. Each allegedly went
to a white man of equal or lesser experience.

And Ms. Butner described an alleged practice of transferring women
and minorities who are promoted, according to the lawsuit. While
white men are often allowed to remain in their units, the lawsuit
alleges, women and minorities are sent to Western Massachusetts,
"hours away from their homes, while working midnight shift[s]."

When the meeting produced no clear results, and more open
positions were allegedly filled without being posted, Ms. Butner
filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination -- the state body charged with enforcement of civil
rights law.  The lawsuit followed.

Proving discrimination poses particular problems, said
Mark Brodin, a professor at Boston College Law School who is not
involved in the lawsuit.

"The challenge is proving what's in the minds of the decision
makers," said Mr. Brodin, whose experience includes extensive work
in employment discrimination law.  That means establishing
-- "through their conduct and through their words and deeds" --
that employment decisions were most likely based on gender or
race.

Diversity statistics, Mr. Brodin said, can help make that case.

According to data provided by the State Police, 132 of 2,183 sworn
officers are women -- about 6 percent; about 11 percent are
nonwhite.  The data show female and minority officers largely
clustered in the lowest ranks -- trooper, sergeant, lieutenant,
and detective lieutenant.  On the current force, three women and
no minorities have reached the rank of captain or higher.

Promotions to many ranks, including sergeant, lieutenant, and
captain, are largely governed by how applicants score on a state
test; promotions to higher ranks and some discretionary
assignments are typically chosen through an application and
interview process.

While there are no female detective captains or lieutenant
colonels and only one captain, the percentage of women who are
majors and detective lieutenants is higher than the percentage of
women in the general population of the force.

The percentage of minority officers drops as rank increases.
Minorities make up 10.7 percent of the total force but make up a
smaller percentage of every rank above trooper.

"These statistics are pretty compelling to make the beginning of a
prima facie case of discrimination," Mr. Brodin said in an
interview.  "If over time, you have a police department that has
30 percent or so minorities and you see very few minorities in the
upper ranks, then you draw an inference from that that looks awful
suspicious."

Allegations of employment discrimination against police forces are
relatively common, experts say.

Dawn Layman, president of the National Association of Women Law
Enforcement Executives and a major at the Lenexa Police Department
in Kansas, said the organization hears complaints about perceived
discrimination occasionally.  And a 2013 survey the organization
conducted showed the percentage of women dwindling as rank
increases.

"If you look at some of the numbers across the board, it's low
to begin with.  But rising through the ranks, that percentage gets
smaller and smaller," Ms. Layman said.

"Unfortunately, intentional employment discrimination still
remains a substantial barrier in the law enforcement context,"
according to a January 2015 report produced by the federal
Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.

Much of the alleged discrimination in the Massachusetts lawsuit
does not concern promotions that include a change in rank, but
involves competitive transfers to open jobs that are desirable but
approximately parallel.

The State Police, the lawsuit alleges, "has a longstanding
practice of transferring white male officers to desirable
positions and promoting white males, to the detriment of
minorities and women."

Marion Fletcher, a Marine Unit sergeant who has won the George L.
Hanna Medal of Valor and was named Trooper of the Year in 2004,
lost out on three jobs between February 2013 and September 2014,
the complaint alleges.

Ms. Fletcher is one of the plaintiffs.  Her nearly 30 years of
service have been so decorated that a manager once referred to her
collection of medals as "fruit salad on [her] chest," according to
the lawsuit.

But when she sought a sergeant's post in the Gaming Enforcement
Division -- touting the awards she earned during undercover
investigations into organized crime, money laundering, and illegal
gambling -- she was allegedly passed over for a man from the
ballistics department.

When she applied for a homicide sergeant opening, interviewers
allegedly ignored her resume materials and never asked whether she
had been involved in a homicide investigation -- instead asking
how she thought she'd "fit in" within the unit.

And when she inquired about a unit commander opening in the Marine
Unit, where her qualifications far surpassed the posted minimums
in each of 14 categories, she received no reply.  Only later did
she learn a male candidate with no marine experience had gotten
the job.

When Ms. Butner lodged her complaint at the Massachusetts
Commission Against Discrimination, she highlighted Ms. Fletcher's
history of bypasses as an example of discrimination, the lawsuit
alleges -- a move that allegedly led to retaliation against
Fletcher, who soon after received a negative evaluation.

Deborah Ryan, a lieutenant who works as a shift commander at State
Police headquarters, was also allegedly passed over again and
again between 2013 and 2015, sometimes for jobs that were never
posted but were allegedly given to less qualified men.

The State Police, the complaint alleges, "has a formal policy
requiring posting of all non-emergency positions but does not
follow its own policy."

Cleveland Coats, the only male plaintiff, allegedly didn't take
promotional exams, convinced by the promotions he'd seen happen
that the process was discriminatory.

A state rule that grants two extra points on promotional
examinations to veterans of the armed forces, the lawsuit alleges,
made it unlikely that Mr. Coats would advance.

Under state law, veterans who pass civil service exams are given
preference in hiring; promotions are not mentioned in the law.

Ms. Butner, Ms. Fletcher, and Ms. Ryan declined, through
Ms. Brodeur-McGan, to be interviewed because they are still on the
force. Mr. Coats did not return calls for this story.

Mr. Coats was allegedly "forced to retire . . . because of
discriminatory treatment of him and other similarly situated
officers."

In the State Police, many of the highest ranks -- detective
lieutenant, detective captain, major, and lieutenant colonel --
are appointed by the colonel. Such promotions are based, the State
Police say, on criteria including prior test-based promotions and
leadership and management skills.


MDL 1486: ePlus Received $0.4-Mil. Payment From DRAM Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ePlus inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, that during the
second quarter of fiscal 2017, the Company received $0.4 million
related to the dynamic random access memory ("DRAM") class action
lawsuit, which claimed that manufacturers fixed the price for DRAM
(a memory part that is sold as part of electronic devices), which
was included in other income.

The Company disclosed that in the second quarter of fiscal 2017,
net earnings rose 7.0% to $16.8 million, inclusive of non-
operating income of $0.4 million relating to the Company's claim
in the class action lawsuit.  In the first half of fiscal 2017,
net earnings rose 12.1% to $27.4 million, inclusive of non-
operating income of $0.4 million relating to the Company's claim
in the class action lawsuit.  The Company's effective tax rate for
the first half of fiscal 2017 was 40.4%, which includes a tax
benefit of $0.5 million, or $0.07 per diluted share, related to
the adoption of the new share-based compensation accounting
standard.


MDL 1674: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the court scheduled a final settlement approval hearing
for December 2016 in the CBNV Mortgage Litigation.

The Company said, "In August 2016, in the lawsuits consolidated
for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re:
Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation
(No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674), we reached a settlement
with the plaintiffs, subject to notice to the class and court
approval. In September 2016, the court granted preliminary
approval, authorized the sending of notice to the class, set the
timing for objections and scheduled a final approval hearing for
December 2016."

"Under this settlement, the matter will be submitted to binding
arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators, who will
determine whether we will pay the plaintiff class either an amount
(inclusive of class counsel fees and expenses) we proposed ($24
million) or an amount proposed by the plaintiffs ($70 million),
with no discretion to choose any other amount. The court has
ordered the arbitrators to reach a decision by the end of March
2017."


MEDICREDIT INC: Portsmouth Regional's Dismissal Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge E. Richard Webber of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied
Defendant's Portsmouth Regional Hospital's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim and Defendants'
Medicredit Inc. and Portsmouth Regional Hospital's Motion to Stay
These Proceedings in the case captioned, JASON MARTIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:16CV01138 ERW (E.D. Mo.).

On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff Jason Martin filed the class action
lawsuit against Defendants Medicredit, Portsmouth and Wentworth-
Douglass Hospital for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Plaintiff contends
Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) "by
causing an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial
or prerecorded voice to be used to make nonemergency telephone
calls to Plaintiff and other members of the Class without their
prior express consent."

Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of individuals to
whose cellular telephone number Medicredit placed a non-emergency
call on and after July 14, 2015, through the use of any automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial or prerecorded voice
-- where the person's number was obtained from a source other than
the person himself. Plaintiff also seeks a subclass of individuals
who owed or allegedly owed a debt to Defendant Portsmouth.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief under the
TCPA from both Medicredit and Portsmouth.

Defendant Portsmouth moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claims
against it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Also pending
before the Court is Defendants Portsmouth and Medicredit's Motion
to Stay these proceedings. Defendants argue that the "first-to-
file" rule mandates a stay of the action pending resolution of the
Verma action.

The putative class action entitled Rajesh Verma, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Medicredit,
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-427-J-25JRK, was filed in in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
April 1, 2016.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/f39rnA from Leagle.com, Judge Webber found that
Plaintiff's pleadings are sufficient because Plaintiff has alleged
the debt collection calls were made by Medicredit on Portsmouth's
behalf pursuant to its policy of farming out its delinquent
accounts to Medicredit.  The Court also determined that the Martin
suit is not duplicative of the Verma action and that the first-to-
file doctrine does not apply. The Court declined to stay the
action pending resolution of Verma.

Jason Martin is represented by:

      Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD
      55 W. Monroe
      Ste. 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (866)726-1092

            -- and --

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S Ocean Dr #235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Tel: (954)589-0588

Medicredit, Inc., et al. are represented by Patrick T. McLaughlin,
Esq. -- pmclaughlin@spencerfane.com -- and -- Scott J. Dickenson,
Esq. -- sdickenson@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER FANE LLP


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau, LLC. The case is captioned Aron Felberbaum, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06746 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2016).

Mercantile Adjustment is a full service, nationally licensed
collections and accounts receivable management firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


METAL SYSTEMS: "Flecha" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Joshua Flecha, Luis Acevedo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Metal Systems, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00800 (W.D. Wis., December 2, 2016), seeks to
recover all unpaid straight and overtime pay, liquidated damages,
attorneys fees and costs, arising out of the Plaintiffs' claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs allege that Metal Systems failed to properly compute
their overtime pay, failed to compensate them for some of their
travel hours, and failed to pay them for some of their shop work
and travel time.

Metal Systems is a Wisconsin limited liability corporation with a
principal place of business located at 151 Maple Street in Johnson
Creek, Wisconsin. Metal Systems primarily performs sheet metal
work on roofs where Plaintiff worked as a manual laborer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yingtao Ho, Esq.
      Jill Hartley, Esq.
      THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
      310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
      Milwaukee, WI 53203
      Telephone: (414) 271-4500
      Fax: (414) 271-6308


MISSISSIPPI: Fed. Gov't Opposes Combining Mental Health Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Amy, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that if Mississippi
gets its way, a long-running case challenging the state's mental
health care for children could be rolled up with the more recent
suit by the federal government over how the state provides mental
health care for adults.

The federal government, though, is fighting that effort, saying
the two cases should remain distinct.

The Troupe case was filed in 2010 by the Southern Poverty Law
Center, alleging Mississippi was far too reliant on sending
children away from their families to psychiatric institutions for
mental health treatment.  The adult case was filed in August,
making similar accusations that adults were being confined in
institutions instead of being offered care in community settings.

Under federal law and court decisions, states are supposed to
provide care in the least restrictive setting possible, helping
people live at home and not in state mental hospitals or private
institutions.

Mississippi, though, has been slow to follow those directives,
still relying on institutions to provide much of its care, even
though those settings are more expensive than community care.

The state argues that the two cases have similar issues, both
feature the state as a defendant, and both feature Justice
Department involvement.  The federal government hasn't intervened
in Troupe but has filed briefs and taken part in unsuccessful
settlement talks.

"While Troupe involves children and this matter involves adults,
there is no legitimate dispute that any alleged needed changes in
the State's care of individuals with mental illness would
necessarily involve changes for the care of both children and
adults," attorney Gregg Mayer wrote on behalf of the state.

The federal government opposes combining the cases, saying care
issues for children and adults are distinct, and there would be
few advantages to a court examining the issues together.

"Few experts or witnesses could effectively testify in both cases
because of the significant differences in the relevant
institutions and services for each population," lawyer Elizabeth
Kelley wrote for the Justice Department.

The state is also trying to freeze discovery in the case until
consolidation is decided, while the Justice Department wants to go
ahead with requesting documents and deposing witnesses.

The Troupe case had been stuck in suspended animation, but under
pressure from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over delays in
many cases, U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate made some
important rulings in November.  He dismissed part of the lawsuit
claiming the state was violating early screening requirements of
the Medicaid program, adopting a magistrate's conclusion that the
plaintiffs had failed to ask for screening.

The plaintiffs' claim that Mississippi is violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act continues, and after Judge Wingate dismissed
the Medicaid claims, he opened up discovery in the case after a
yearslong freeze.

Judge Wingate has never decided whether he will certify Troupe as
a class action, repeatedly putting off ruling.  If he rejected
class-action status, that outcome could be fatal to the suit,
because any remedies won by the plaintiffs would apply only to the
original plaintiffs.

The adult suit is being heard by U.S. District Judge Carlton
Reeves, and the federal government may be trying to avoid
Wingate's courtroom.  With the incoming Trump administration, long
delays could mean new leaders at the Justice Department change
their mind and agree to a settlement that gives the state more of
what it wants.

In one way, though, it might be appropriate for the cases to be
merged.  The Troupe case has existed in limbo so long that all the
original child plaintiffs are now adults.  The youngest person
named in the complaint, then 13, is now at least 19 years old.


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Complaint in Newport Shareholder Suit Amended
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in a consolidated merger-related lawsuit filed an
amended complaint captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder
Litigation, according to MKS Instruments, Inc.'s November 8, 2016,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon
Chung v. Newport Corp., et al, Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to
the Merger Agreement between the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub.
The complaint, filed on March 9, 2016, named as defendants the
Company, Newport and Merger Sub, and certain then-current and
former members of Newport's former board of directors. The
complaint alleges that the named directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell
Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair
deal protection devices. The complaint also alleges that the
Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind
the Merger Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs, among other relief.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an
amended complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that
the preliminary proxy statement filed by Newport on March 15, 2016
(the "Proxy") omitted material information. The amended complaint
also names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and
then-current members of Newport's board of directors.

Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint
captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-
16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of the Newport's
stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The
complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub
and the then-current members of Newport's former board of
directors. It alleges that the named directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell
Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices, and by omitting material information from the
Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches
of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, and an award
of attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in
the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the
Court granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016. On April 20, 2016,
plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing on their
anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and notified the
Court that they did not presently intend to file a motion for a
preliminary injunction regarding the Merger Agreement. On April
22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated
motion for a preliminary injunction. In August, plaintiffs
completed the expedited discovery that the Court ordered.

On October 24, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on
behalf of a class of Newport's stockholders for claims related to
the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants the
Company, Newport, and the then-current members of Newport's former
board of directors. It alleges that the named directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to
sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led
to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices, and by omitting material information from the
Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company and Newport
aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks monetary damages, including
pre- and post-judgment interest.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the amended
complaint have no merit and the Company, Newport and the named
directors intend to defend vigorously against these claims.

MKS Instruments, Inc., is a global provider of instruments,
subsystems and process control solutions that measure, control,
power, monitor and analyze critical parameters of advanced
manufacturing processes to improve process performance and
productivity.  The Company also provides services relating to the
maintenance and repair of our products, software maintenance,
installation services and training.


MOCTEZUMA MUFFLERS: "Perez" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN JOSE PEREZ on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. MOCTEZUMA MUFFLERS, INC., MOCTEZUMA
MUFFLERS I, INC., MOCTEZUMA MUFFLERS II, INC., and MIGUEL REA,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11161 (N.D. Ill.,
December 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages for alleged
unpaid overtime work under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants operate an auto repair and maintenance business in
Illinois and Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alvar Ayala, Esq.
     Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
     WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 795-9121


MONSTER CHEF: "Wolf" Suit in Fla. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Wolf and Don Allen, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Monster Chef Inc. d/b/a Vines Grille & Wine
Bar and Dimitrios Karabinis, Case No. 8:16-cv-03330-CEH-TGW (M.D.
Fla., December 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 7533 Sand
Lake Rd, Orlando, FL 32819.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sam J. Smith, Esq.
      Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
      Tamra Givens, Esq.
      BURR & SMITH, LLP
      111 2nd Avenue N.E., Suite 1100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (813) 253-2010
      E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
              ldonnell@burrandsmith.com
              tgivens@burrandsmithlaw.com


NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Motion for Rehearing En Banc Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
David Willson, a retired Army officer, attorney and now owner of
Titan Info Security Group, travels the country, educating CEOs and
executives on how to protect their companies from data breaches,
which have become increasingly common in recent years.

His No. 1 piece of advice to companies: implement what he calls
"reasonable security."

That means making sure basic standards -- i.e. updating software,
turning on firewalls, adding intrusion protection, etc. -- are in
place.

"I recently wrote a paper looking at 13 class action lawsuits and
negligence lawsuits filed," Mr. Willson told Legal Newsline.  "I
found that in all of these suits, no one was meeting that standard
of reasonable security.

"I don't feel bad for companies when they're not doing the
basics."

Mr. Willson spent 20 years in the Army and served in the Army's
Judge Advocate General's Corps, or JAG, which operates like a
court system, and has worked at the National Security Agency and
USCYBERCOM, otherwise known as United States Cyber Command.

Licensed to practice law in Colorado, New York and Connecticut,
Mr. Willson now works as a risk management and cyber security
expert, writing and lecturing on both topics.  He assists
companies in planning, designing policies and providing awareness
training, incident response and reputation management, among other
things.

He said it's important for companies to show due diligence and
develop a plan to lower the risk of a data breach, and then, if an
incident occurs, react quickly and protect their reputations.

"I can't tell you how many times companies do the lip service, say
they're concerned about cyber security, yet aren't really doing
anything about it," he said.

Mr. Willson pointed to Nationwide Insurance, which suffered a data
breach in 2012 and was then hit with subsequent class action
lawsuits.  Recently, a federal appellate court denied Nationwide's
request for a rehearing after previously deciding to side with
plaintiffs in two consolidated class action lawsuits against the
company.

While he noted that he hasn't looked at the specifics of the case,
Mr. Willson said he could "almost guarantee" there were things the
company could've done better to minimize its risk.

"Look, no one can all-out prevent it," he said.  "But you can
prevent from being stupid. You can make sure you have at least
basic security in place, so the company and its attorneys can
defend that security."

Sadly, many companies don't think it will happen to them, Mr.
Willson said.

"Whenever I teach a class or give a lecture, I always start off by
asking, how many of you believe your company will be breached? And
it's astonishing, only 10 to 30 percent of the people raise their
hands," he said.

What's worse is many of the executives he's talked with often
can't explain what security measures they currently have in place,
he said.

"If you're breached tomorrow and faced with that question, you
better be able to answer it," Mr. Willson said.  "Then it's, how
are you going to react? Who are you going to call -- a vendor to
help investigate? How are you going to respond to shareholders and
investors?

"A lot of companies are falling really short, in my opinion."

While Mr. Willson couldn't say whether Nationwide could have
completely avoided the lawsuits brought against it, he didn't
necessarily agree with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit's opinion in the case either.

In the Sixth Circuit's September opinion, designated as
unpublished, a majority of the court's three-judge panel said it
would be "unreasonable" to expect customers to wait for "actual
misuse."

"This is not a case where Plaintiffs seek to 'manufacture standing
by incurring costs in anticipation of non-imminent harm,'" Judge
Helene White wrote for the panel majority.  Judge Sheryl Lipman,
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
sitting by designation, joined her in the Sept. 12 decision.

"Rather, these costs are a concrete injury suffered to mitigate an
imminent harm, and satisfy the injury requirement of Article III
standing."

The plaintiffs in the cases -- which were consolidated -- appealed
to the Sixth Circuit from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

Mohammad Galaria and Anthony Hancox brought their class actions in
the Southern District of Ohio and the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, respectively, after hackers breached
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company's computer network in October
2012 and stole their personal information, along with more than 1
million others.

More specifically, they argue Nationwide failed to adopt required
procedures to protect against the wrongful dissemination of their
data.

Mr. Willson contends the injury to the plaintiffs stems from the
hackers' actions, and Nationwide should not be held liable unless
the court could find the company specifically negligent.

The majority, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo v. Robins, said the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of
standing consists of three elements: a plaintiff must have 1)
suffered an injury in fact, 2) that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct of a defendant and 3) that is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

The nation's high court explained in its May decision that for an
injury to be particularized, it must affect the plaintiff in a
"personal and individual way."  The injury-in-fact also must be
"concrete," which means "real" and "not abstract." But "concrete"
is not necessarily synonymous with "tangible."

"Here, Plaintiffs' allegations of a substantial risk of harm,
coupled with reasonably incurred mitigation costs, are sufficient
to establish a cognizable Article III injury at the pleading stage
of the litigation," White wrote for the Sixth Circuit majority.
"Plaintiffs allege that the theft of their personal data places
them at a continuing, increased risk of fraud and identity theft
beyond the speculative allegations of 'possible future injury' or
'objectively reasonable likelihood' of injury that the Supreme
Court has explained are insufficient.

"There is no need for speculation where Plaintiffs allege that
their data has already been stolen and is now in the hands of ill-
intentioned criminals."

Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder took a different position,
dissenting from the majority.

"We need not take sides in the existing circuit split regarding
whether an increased risk of identity theft is an Article III
injury because, even assuming that it is, the plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate the second prong of Article III standing --
causation," she explained.  "The causation element requires 'a
causal connection between the injury and the [defendant's]
conduct' -- in other words, the injury must be 'fairly traceable
to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of
the independent action of some third party not before the court.'"

Judge Batchelder argued that if Messrs. Galaria and Hancox
suffered injury, it was at the hands of criminal third-party
actors -- in this case, the hackers.

In an Oct. 12 order, the Sixth Circuit denied Nationwide's motion
for rehearing en banc, or a rehearing by the full court.

Though he thinks it unfair, Mr. Willson doesn't believe the Sixth
Circuit ruling holds much weight.

"I'd be hard-pressed to say that it will have any effect on
companies," he said.  "Most companies, in these situations, settle
out.  It's quicker and cheaper."

But he warned that some states, such as New York, have started to
implement cyber security rules for companies, in particular
financial institutions.  Under those rules, risk assessments must
be performed annually, and by a third party.

"There are some rules out there, and they're slowing starting to
pick at companies," Mr. Willson said.  "But it's a horrible way to
implement security.  The law lags so far behind technology. What
they're being forced to implement should've been done years ago."


NEW HAWAII: Settles 2013 Bronx Hepatitis A Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Marler Clark, LLC on Dec. 1 disclosed that a settlement has been
reached in the class action lawsuit against New Hawaii Sea
Restaurant, formerly of the Bronx, New York.  Approximately 3,000
people received Hepatitis A vaccinations after being exposed to
the illness by the restaurant in September 2013 and all are
included in the class-action lawsuit.

The deadline for applying to receive a portion of the $200,000
settlement is December 16th, 2016.  Those interested in benefiting
from the class action settlement should visit
www.NewHawaiiHepA.com for more information.

According to the settlement, potential class members who may
benefit by this settlement include anyone who ate or drank food
from the New Hawaii Sea Restaurant from September 7-19, 2013, or
were exposed to someone who did, and obtained a blood test and
immune globulin (IG) or Hepatitis A vaccination shot within 30
days of eating at the restaurant.  Those who actually developed
Hepatitis A infections after eating at the restaurant are not
included in this settlement.

Bill Marler of Marler Clark LLP, an expert on Hepatitis outbreaks,
is available for comment on the outcome of the case. Marler is the
nation's premiere legal expert on foodborne illness and has
represented victims of various foodborne illnesses.  If you would
like to speak with Mr. Marler, please contact Colleen McMahon
(colleen@quinnbrein.com), Samantha Jones (sam@quinnbrein.com), or
call (206) 842-8922.

Marler Clark, LLC has been an advocate for victims of foodborne
illnesses for decades, and have represented thousands of victims
of Hepatitis A and other foodborne illnesses.  Marler Clark is the
only law firm in the nation with a practice focused exclusively on
foodborne illness litigation.  Marler Clark attorneys have
litigated Hepatitis A cases stemming from outbreaks traced to a
variety of foods.  The firm has brought lawsuits against companies
such as Cargill, ConAgra, Peanut Corporation of America, Sheetz,
Taco Bell, Subway and Wal-Mart.


NEW MIAMI, OH: Speeders Want Judge to Garnish Village's Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denise G. Callahan, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that
New Miami speeders are once again asking Judge Michael Oster to
garnish the village's funds so they can be repaid almost $3
million illegally collected from fines under the old stationary
speed cameras.

Judge Oster has already denied the request once, but attorney Josh
Engel said he believes once they tell him the village
misrepresented the money they had on hand to pay the eventual
judgment, Judge Oster will change his mind.  At the last hearing
in June, attorneys for the village told Judge Oster there was $1.2
million in unencumbered funds in the New Miami coffers.

Court documents show there was $769,734 in unencumbered funds on
the day of the hearing and that amount had dropped to $482,346 by
the end of October.

"It is now clear that, while the court was being lulled into
believing that 'unencumbered funds' were -- to use the court's
words -- 'sitting there' and thus available to pay the judgment
that the court was due to enter once the Supreme Court ruled on
New Miami's jurisdictional memorandum, the village was spending
the 'unencumbered funds' hand over fist," the filing reads.

The speeders' attorneys are also chastising New Miami Solicitor
Dennis Adams for not telling the judge the unencumbered figure
amount was incorrect.

"Worst of all, the law director had remained silent and made no
effort to correct the record even when the court observed in its
entry that the 'village has $1.2 million in funds set aside' to
satisfy any judgment in the case," the motion reads.  "There could
be no reasonable excuse for the law director's silence."

Mr. Adams said he hadn't seen the motion and therefore could not
comment.

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to garnish all proceeds from
the new speed camera program and award them attorneys fees for
handling the two garnishment motions.

Retired Judge Michael Sage declared New Miami's speed cameras
unconstitutional in March 2014, and the case has been in and out
of the common pleas and appellate courts.  The Ohio Supreme Court
declined a review of the case last summer.

The village collected $1.8 million during the 15 months the
cameras were rolling.

The village contracted with Optotraffic to run the previous speed
camera program, and for that service, the Maryland traffic camera
business was paid $1.2 million, or 40 percent of the total fine
collection amount.  So the final figure the speeders want to
collect is $3 million.

Since a complaint filed by two Butler County women and two
Cincinnati residents, the village had incurred $98,575 in legal
expenses, as of October.  The village would not provide updated
numbers for this article.

Before the ban was issued, village officials used the new-found
funds to give raises, upgrade vehicles and pick up the tab for
health insurance for employees, spending roughly $430,000 more
from 2012 to 2013. The village put the brakes on spending last
year, slashing $825,000 out of the 2014 budget.

The two sides were scheduled to meet with Judge Oster, but the
hearing has to be rescheduled.

James Englert, the outside counsel handling the case, said the
garnishment issue likely wouldn't be discussed at the hearing
because they haven't had an opportunity to file a response.  He
said he was disappointed the topic is being revisited.  In the
first allegation over the summer, the speeders claimed the village
committed fraud by contracting with an out-of-state company.  He
said the court didn't buy that argument, and this one is no
better.

"The suggestion that there was fraud was overreaching in the first
place, and it should never have been made," he said.  "Now the
suggestion seems to be that there's fraud because the village is
spending monies on municipal expenditures, and that is not a
reasonable position.  I'm dismayed to be looking again at a motion
that was without merit in the first place and is still without
merit."

Mr. Englert said the only topic for discussion should be on the
claim the village was unjustly enriched and must return the money.
If the judge finds in favor of the speeders however,
Mr. Englert is arguing that only the drivers who received a notice
of liability, requested a hearing and were found liable to pay the
fine deserve their money back.

"If the court finds that the village is liable under Count IV, the
proper measure of damages is $10,728," Mr. Englert wrote.

Engel said the village's perspective is far from what courts have
ruled previously.

"That is a close to frivolous argument on their part," he said.
"The Ohio Supreme Court has on numerous occasions said that if you
collect money under an unconstitutional statue, rule or ordinance,
you have to pay it back to everyone who paid, not just those who
took the time and effort to challenge it before an administrative
hearing."

BY THE NUMBERS

44,993: People cited in 15 months of operation

2,967: People who requested an administrative hearing

852: People who appeared for an administrative hearing

177: People who appeared for a hearing, found liable and had to
pay the fine

$3 million: Estimated revenue collected.


NORTHERN MARIANA: Submits Settlement Fund Asset Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie De La Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that the
NMI government, the NMI Retirement Fund, and the NMI Settlement
Fund have jointly submitted in federal court on Dec. 2 an
agreement about the ownership of assets belonging to the
Settlement Fund.

The agreement was signed by Settlement Fund counsel Dean Manglona
and NMI government and NMI Retirement Fund counsel Attorney
General Edward Manibusan.

According to the agreement, or stipulation, the Settlement Fund is
a not-for-profit, tax exempt entity created by the court-approved
settlement dated Aug. 6, 2013, in connection with Betty Johnson's
class action lawsuit.

The parties agree that the Settlement Fund is not a pension plan
and it does not operate or manage a pension plan.

The settlement agreement provides that the Settlement Fund shall
"accept the transfer of the assets of the CNMI Fund as provided in
this agreement, and to own the consent judgment entered by the
District Court upon final approval as specified in this agreement.
. ."

The assets that were transferred to the Settlement Fund and now
owned and controlled solely by the Settlement Fund include, but
not limited to, the Judicial Building Loan note, and the leasehold
interest(s) in real property that was transferred from the CNMI
Fund to the Settlement Fund (to the extent allowed under CNMI
law).

The other assets include all bonds, securities, investments, and
cash accounts held in the name of the Settlement Fund, and
payments to be made to the Settlement Fund under paragraphs 4 and
5 of the settlement agreement.


OCEAN POWER: $3 Million Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Lead Plaintiff's
motion for final approval of the parties' settlement of $3 million
in cash and 380,000 shares of OPT common stock  in the case
captioned, In re OCEAN POWER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SECURITIES
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO ALL ACTIONS, Case Nos. 3:14-
CV-3799, 3:14-CV-3815, 3:14-CV-4015, 3:14-CV-4592 (D.N.J.).

The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired (i) OPT securities
between January 14, 2014 and July 29, 2014; and/or (ii) purchased
or otherwise acquired OPT securities pursuant to and/or traceable
to OPT's April 4, 2014 follow-on stock offering. Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants disseminated false and misleading statements about
OPT's products. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that OPT's
utility scale "Power Buoy" was technologically deficient and
incapable of performing in the manner represented by Defendants
during the class period. The lawsuit seeks money damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

On April 5, 2016, after several arm's length conversations the
parties were able to agree on a settlement in principle. The
parties filed a stipulation of settlement, setting forth the terms
of their proposed agreement on May 5, 2016, and moved for
preliminary approval by the Court. On June 7, 2016, the Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement, conditionally
certified the proposed class, approved the form and content of the
proposed class notice, and set a settlement hearing for November
14, 2016.

The settlement agreement provides for the payment by Defendants of
$3 million in cash and 380,000 shares of Ocean Power Technologies
common stock to establish a settlement fund. At the November 14,
2016 hearing Lead Counsel represented that, in accordance with the
stipulation executed by the parties, Defendant Ocean Power
Technologies insurer paid $2.5 million into the fund and Ocean
Power Technologies itself paid $500,000 into the fund after the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The stipulation
provides that Ocean Power Technologies will issue and distribute
the 380,000 shares of settlement stock to Lead Counsel, or at Lead
Counsel's instruction, to the Claims Administrator, as fiduciary
for and for the benefit of the class, within ten business days
after the Court enters final judgment.

The parties have stipulated to the certification, for settlement
purposes the classes of "All persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired (i) OPT securities between January 14, 2014 and
July 29, 2014; and/or (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired OPT
securities pursuant to and/or traceable to OPT's April 4, 2014
follow-on stock offering. Excluded from the Class are Defendants,
all directors and officers of OPT during the Class Period, and any
family member, trust, company, entity or affiliate controlled or
owned by any of the excluded persons and entities referenced
above."

In her Opinion dated November 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/d0EeAB from Leagle.com, Judge Wolfson found that it
is appropriate to certify the class for settlement purposes
because all the requirements of class certification has been
satisfied. The Court found that the expenses were reasonably
necessary for the prosecution of the litigation and the parties'
settlement in the amount of $3 million in cash and 380,000 shares
of OPT common stock, plus accrued interest settlement in the
attorneys' fees  and costs are reasonable.

FiveMore Special Situations Fund Ltd. is represented by Eduard
Korsinsky, Esq. -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

Terence Roby is represented by Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and -- Erica L. Stone, Esq. --
estone@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA

Yoke M. Chew, et al. are represented by James E. Cecchi, Esq. --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C.

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al. are represented by Michelle
Hart Yeary, Esq. -- michelle.yeary@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP

Roth Capital Partners LLC is represented by Tracey Salmon Smith,
Esq. -- tsmith@bressler.com -- BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C.


OCEANFIRST FINANCIAL: Files Merger Info Due to "Garfield" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 8, 2016, OceanFirst Financial Corp.
supplemented its merger-related disclosure in consideration of the
lawsuit initiated by Robert Garfield.

On October 20, 2016, OceanFirst Financial Corp. filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a joint proxy
statement/prospectus, which formed a part of OceanFirst's
Registration Statement (Registration No. 333-213307) on Form S-4
that was declared effective by the SEC on October 19, 2016. The
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus relates to the transactions (the
"Transactions") contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of July 12, 2016, by and among OceanFirst, Masters Merger
Sub Corp. and Ocean Shore Holding Co. ("Ocean Shore"). On or about
October 21, 2016, the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus was mailed
to the OceanFirst stockholders of record and the Ocean Shore
stockholders of record in connection with their respective special
meetings relating to the requisite approval of each company's
stockholders in connection with Transactions.

As previously disclosed in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
on September 8, 2016, Robert Garfield, a purported stockholder of
OceanFirst, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Ocean County, captioned Garfield v. OceanFirst
Financial Corp., et al No. OCN-L-2469-16 (the "Garfield Action"),
against OceanFirst and members of the OceanFirst board on behalf
of all public OceanFirst stockholders. The lawsuit generally
alleges that the members of the OceanFirst board breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the Transactions. The lawsuit
further alleges the Transactions are not in the best interests of
the OceanFirst stockholders and provide personal benefits to the
individual defendants. The lawsuit also alleges that the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus omitted certain material information.

OceanFirst believes that the Garfield Action is without merit and
that no further disclosure is required to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law. However, to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, OceanFirst has determined
that it will make certain supplemental disclosures by filing as
Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K the Investor
Presentation, dated July 13, 2016, that was previously included as
Exhibit 99.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by OceanFirst
with the SEC on July 13, 2016, as well as by including below in
this Current Report on Form 8-K selected information from such
Investor Presentation. By making these supplemental disclosures,
OceanFirst does not admit in any way that these supplemental
disclosures are material or otherwise required by law.


OREGON: Tillamook County to Join Class Action Over Timber Harvest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Powers, writing for North Coast Citizen, reports that
Tillamook County has about two months to decide if it wants to opt
out of a $1.4 billion class-action suit, against the Oregon
Department of Forestry, claiming that mismanagement of Oregon
Forest Trust Lands has cost 15 counties $35 million a year since
1998.

But so far, officials are saying the county is in.

"There's no reason why you would pull out," said Tillamook County
Commissioner Tim Josi, who heads up the Council of Forest Trust
Land Counties.  "It's like cutting off your nose to spite your
face."

Attorney John DiLorenzo -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- of Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP of Portland, filed the lawsuit in Linn County
Circuit Court earlier this year.  The suit alleges breach of
contract on behalf of counties that receive money based on annual
timber harvests of 654,000 acres Forest Trust Lands statewide.
About half of that acreage lies within Tillamook County, Mr. Josi
added.

Mr. DiLorenzo said a notice of the legal action was mailed on Nov.
23 to the counties and roughly 150 harvest-revenue beneficiaries -
- such as law enforcement agencies, school districts, fire
departments, libraries and more.  Besides Linn and Tillamook, the
other counties include Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos,
Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln, Marion, Polk and
Washington.

"They have 60 days to opt out," Mr. DiLorenzo said.  "If they take
no action to do so, they will be included as plaintiffs.  If they
opt out, they forego the money."

The legal action stems from issues dating back to the 1930s and
the definition of Greatest Permanent Value (GPV).

In 1939, under Gov. Charles Sprague and the Legislature's State
Forest Acquisition Act, the state began acquiring the mostly
cutover timberlands.  The land had become a financial burden to
the counties during the Great Depression because of delinquent
property tax payments, foreclosures and in the wake of massive
fires.

In exchange, the lands were to be managed for their GPV and
portions of revenues generated by timber sales distributed to the
counties.  At the time, the counties and special districts
interpreted that to mean the property be managed for the largest
sustainable timber.

However, since then the state has expanded the GPV's definition to
include other factors such as wildlife protection, watershed
enhancement and recreation.  In 1998, an administrative rule
changed forest management policy so timber-revenue generation was
less of a priority, and the Department of Forestry reduced annual
timber harvests without the consent of the beneficiaries.

"They took the emphasis off of timber harvest and created equal
value with environmental and social concerns," said Mr. Josi.
"Which eliminated additional harvest proceeds because these
forests are mature."

According to lawsuit, the 15 Forest Trust Land counties have
received about $35 million less per year since the 1998 change,
and that constitutes a breach of the original contract, according
to Mr. DiLorenzo.

Bob Van Dyk has a different take on the matter.  He is the Wild
Salmon Center's Oregon and California policy director and part of
the North Coast State Forest Coalition.

"State law says these forests should be managed to secure the
greatest permanent value to the state," Mr. Van Dyk said.  "This
law specifically identifies multiple uses, such as providing for
fish and wildlife, protecting drinking water, protection against
floods and erosion and allowing recreation, as well as timber
sales.  No hierarchy of uses is mandated."

He added that the state responded to the new demands in the 1990s
by developing detailed, and balanced, conservation plans.

"The Board of Forestry sought high harvest levels while also
protecting salmon streams, restoring lands damaged by earlier
timber practices, managing recreation and protecting critical
wildlife habitat," he said.  "The result was a dramatic increase
in harvest levels.  Rather than causing economic devastation, the
state forests became a reliable economic engine."

But Mr. Josi said harvest levels are higher than they've ever been
because the trees in question have matured to 70-plus years old.

"And now is the time to start benefiting from that . . . before
the trees get too old," he explained.  "Especially for these rural
communities that have been really hurt all these years."

He also said scientific research, such as the Trask Paired
Watershed Study, states the environment is not in danger because
of the current logging industry.

"If I really thought what I was advocating for was destroying the
environment, I wouldn't do it," he said.  "The environmentalists
work on fear.  They do this by selling fear.  They're no better
than the NRA.  They sell fear so that people buy dues and so they
keep paying their wages."

Mr. Van Dyk said the environmental interest he represents don't
qualify under Mr. Josi's environmental marketing analysis.

"We're not a member organization," he noted.  "So, we don't have
members to scare."

However, the North Coast State Forest Coalition, which Van Dyk
represents, is made up of core member organizations including the
Wild Salmon Center, Oregon Chapter Sierra Club, Association of
Northwest Steelheaders, Oregon Council Trout Unlimited, Pacific
Rivers, Native Fish Society and Northwest Guides and Anglers
Association.

Mr. Van Dyk added the Coalition doesn't oppose timber harvesting,
but would like to see measures put in place that are above the
minimum requirements imposed on private lands.

"We are going to be requesting that all of the taxing districts
opt out (of the class-action suit)," he said.

Mr. DiLorenzo said he doesn't see that happening.

"Some environmental groups are urging (plaintiffs) to opt out to
make a statement," he said.  "That would be a useless gesture
because this case is not going to change laws.  If you opt out,
you just forego the money. I anticipate almost everyone will stay
in."

Mr. DiLorenzo added he anticipates the case to go to trial in the
latter part if 2017, or early 2018.


PETROQUEST ENERGY: QIBs Lawsuit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
PetroQuest Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit in New York has been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

On May 27, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed on behalf of holders of the
2017 Notes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the February
Exchange, the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,
the indenture governing the 2017 Notes and the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing by benefiting itself and a minority of
noteholders who are qualified institutional buyers ("QIBs").
According to the lawsuit, as a result of the February Exchange in
which only QIBs (and non-U.S. persons under Regulation S) were
eligible to participate, the Company unjustly enriched itself at
the expense of class members by reducing indebtedness, extending
the maturity date of its long term debt and reducing the value of
the 2017 Notes. The lawsuit seeks damages and attorney's fees, in
addition to declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the
liens created for the benefit of the 2021 Notes are null and void
and that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a default under
the indenture for the 2017 Notes. In August 2016, the lawsuit was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana.

PetroQuest Energy, Inc. is an independent oil and gas company
incorporated in the State of Delaware with primary operations in
Texas, Louisiana and the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


PETROQUEST ENERGY: Unit Named as Defendant in Hughes County Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetroQuest Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
subsidiary, PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C. ("PQ LLC"), and another
exploration and production company were named on October 11, 2016,
as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on behalf
of royalty owners in the state district court in Hughes County,
Oklahoma. The lawsuit alleges that PQ LLC and the other defendant
failed to pay interest with respect to untimely royalty payments.
The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

PetroQuest Energy, Inc. is an independent oil and gas company
incorporated in the State of Delaware with primary operations in
Texas, Louisiana and the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


PETROQUEST ENERGY: Unit Named as Defendant in Oklahoma Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
PetroQuest Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's
subsidiary, PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C. ("PQ LLC"), and another
exploration and production company were named on October 25, 2016,
as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on behalf
of royalty owners in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma. The lawsuit alleges that PQ LLC and the
other defendant underpaid royalties or did not pay royalties by
various means. The lawsuit seeks actual, compensatory and punitive
damages, and attorney's fees.

PetroQuest Energy, Inc. is an independent oil and gas company
incorporated in the State of Delaware with primary operations in
Texas, Louisiana and the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


PHC INC: Maz Partners' Bid to Modify Class Cert. Order Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed in part
defendants' motion for partial reconsideration and denied MAZ's
motion to modify a class certification order in the case
captioned, MAZ PARTNERS LP, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE SHEAR, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 11-11049-PBS (D. Mass.).

The shareholder class action arises from a corporate merger.  On
January 14, 2016, the Court certified a class of "All Class A
shareholders of PHC, Inc., who either abstained from voting or
voted against the PHC -- Acadia merger in the October 26, 2011
shareholder vote, who held their Class A shares immediately prior
to October 26, 2011, and whose shares were converted to Acadia
shares after the effective merger date, except Defendants and any
person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to, or
affiliated with, any of the Defendants."

MAZ had sought a broader class definition that also included Class
A shareholders who had voted for the merger, but the Court held
that MAZ was not typical of such shareholders because those
shareholders faced an acquiescence defense that MAZ did not. The
Court rejected MAZ's argument that omissions in the proxy made the
shareholders who voted for the merger so poorly informed that the
acquiescence defense would not apply.

On September 1, 2016, the Court stated in its order on summary
judgment that there was a triable issue of whether there was a
material nondisclosure in the proxy. The plaintiff has presented
evidence from which a jury could find that the defendants failed
to fully inform the shareholders that the Stout Risius Ross, Inc.
fairness opinion did not address the $5 million Class B payment or
the $90 million pre-merger dividend.

MAZ moves to modify the order on class certification on the basis
that the Court's finding of a triable issue of inadequate
disclosure supports an expansion of the class definition to
include Class A shareholders who voted for the merger. In
response, the defendants move for reconsideration of the Court's
statement in the summary judgment order that there is a triable
issue of whether the scope of the SRR fairness opinion was
adequately disclosed.

In her Memorandum and Order dated November 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/kqiBYu from Leagle.com, Judge Saris allowed the
defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the
directors' liability for any disclosure violations because there
is no evidence in the record that any misleading opinion in the
proxy was intentional, reckless, or made in bad faith and denied
as moot MAZ motion to amend the class to exclude those individuals
who entered into Cease-and-Desist and Sanction Orders with the
SEC.

MAZ Partners LP, et al. are represented by Adam J. Blander, Esq.
-- ablander@wolfpopper.com -- and -- Chet B. Waldman, Esq. --
cwaldman@wolfpopper.com -- brian.waldman@arentfox.com -- WOLF
POPPER LLP -- Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq. --
norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- and -- Norman Berman, Esq. --
nberman@bermandevalerio.com -- BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT
& PUCILLO

Bruce A. Shear, et al. are represented by James H. Hulme, Esq. --
james.hulme@arentfox.com -- and --  Matthew M. Wright, Esq. --
matthew.wright@arentfox.com -- ARENT FOX, LLP -- Leonard H.
Freiman, Esq. -- lfreiman@goulstonstorrs.com -- and -- Richard M.
Zielinski, Esq. -- rzielinski@goulstonstorrs.com -- GOULSTON &
STORRS


PHELAN HALLINAN: Bid to Dismiss or Stay "Borg" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a
motion to dismiss or stay in the case captioned, KELLY BORG, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. PHELAN, HALLINAN, DIAMOND, & JONES, PLLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:16-cv-2070-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla.).

In 2005, Plaintiff Kelly Borg took out a mortgage to purchase a
primary residence. U.S. Bank National Association, which is the
client of the law firm Phelan, later obtained ownership of Borg's
mortgage obligation. On February 8, 2016, after Borg allegedly
defaulted on the mortgage, Phelan, on behalf of U.S. Bank, filed a
foreclosure action in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Hillsborough County, Florida, against Borg and "Unknown Tenants."
That case is the second foreclosure action Phelan filed for U.S.
Bank against Borg. However, Borg prevailed in the first
foreclosure action.

On July 19, 2016, Borg filed her class action Complaint in the
Court against Phelan, alleging Phelan violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq. (FDCPA),
during its representation of U.S. Bank in the pending foreclosure
action. U.S. Bank is not a party in the case. Rather, Borg alleges
only that Phelan violated the FDCPA during the foreclosure action
in four ways: (1) "attempting to collect monthly installment
payments due beyond Florida's five year statute of limitations";
(2) "assessing charges against borrowers for serving process on
'unknown tenants'"; (3) "falsely claiming that Phelan's client,
U.S. Bank, is the 'holder' of the note at issue and, thus,
entitled to sue Borg"; and (4) "omitting the fact that Borg's home
was previously subject to a prior foreclosure lawsuit" and
"failing to file a second 'Notice of Intent to Foreclosure' letter
prior to instituting the second state court foreclosure."

Phelan filed its Motion to Dismiss or Stay, requesting that the
Court abstain pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine which
"addresses the circumstances in which federal courts should
abstain from exercising their jurisdiction because a parallel
lawsuit is proceeding in one or more state courts." Phelan argues
that the instant FDCPA action is substantially similar to the
pending state foreclosure action and the factors weigh in favor of
abstention. However, Borg contends that the cases are not
substantially similar in parties or issues.

In her Order dated November 7, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/nlvdMM from Leagle.com, Judge Covington declined to
dismiss or stay the case pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine
because it is uncertain whether this case and the foreclosure
action share substantially the same parties and issues and the
Court concluded that FDCPA action is vexatious and reactive in
nature merely because the FDCPA action is based on Phelan's
conduct in the foreclosure case so that exercise of jurisdiction,
abstention would be improper.

Kelly Borg is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave, Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813)579-2483

Phelan, Hallinan, Diamond & Jones, PLLC is represented by Wendy J.
Stein, Esq. -- wstein@bonnerkiernan.com -- BONNER, KIERNAN,
TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., is defending itself from a
consolidated securities lawsuit filed by certain investors
relating to the Line 901 Incident, the Company said in its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November
8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In May 2015, the Company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the
Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert.
Following the release, the Company shut down the pipeline and
initiated its emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which
includes the United States Coast Guard, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the California Office of Spill Prevention and
Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was
established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation
operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has
been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, subject to
continued shoreline monitoring. The Company's current "worst case"
estimate of the amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum
volume of oil that it believed could have been spilled based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935
barrels.

There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits
filed on behalf of certain purported investors in Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. and its subsidiaries (the "Partnership")
and/or Plains GP Holdings, L.P. ("PAGP") against the Partnership,
PAGP and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and
underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a
single proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that
the various defendants violated securities laws by misleading
investors regarding the integrity of the Partnership's pipelines
and related facilities through false and misleading statements,
omission of material facts and concealing of the true extent of
the spill. The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of
the reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and
PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the
defendants.

"The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, deny the
allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond accordingly.
Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing
organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance
policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of
our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits; we
are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our
underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements
we previously entered into with such underwriters."

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., is a Delaware limited
partnership formed in 1998.  The Company and its subsidiaries own
and operate midstream energy infrastructure and provide logistics
services for crude oil, natural gas liquids, natural gas and
refined products.  They own an extensive network of pipeline
transportation, terminalling, storage and gathering assets in key
crude oil and NGL producing basins and transportation corridors
and at major market hubs in the United States and Canada.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Defends Suits Related to Line 901 Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., is defending itself against
lawsuits arising from the 2015 Line 901 oil spill incident,
according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2016.

In May 2015, the Company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the
Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert.
Following the release, the Company shut down the pipeline and
initiated its emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which
includes the United States Coast Guard, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the California Office of Spill Prevention and
Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was
established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation
operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has
been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, subject to
continued shoreline monitoring. The Company's current "worst case"
estimate of the amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum
volume of oil that it believed could have been spilled based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935
barrels.

The Company said, "Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we
established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were
damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage
claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims
line and we are processing those claims for payment as we receive
them. In addition, we have also had nine class action lawsuits
filed against us, six of which have been administratively
consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. In general,
the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of
claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release,
including potential classes such as persons that derive a
significant portion of their income through commercial fishing and
harvesting activities in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara
County or from businesses that are dependent on marine resources
from Santa Barbara County, retail businesses located in historic
downtown Santa Barbara, certain owners of oceanfront and/or
beachfront property on the Pacific Coast of California, and other
classes of individuals and businesses that were allegedly impacted
by the release."

"We are also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement
holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory
damages."

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., is a Delaware limited
partnership formed in 1998.  The Company and its subsidiaries own
and operate midstream energy infrastructure and provide logistics
services for crude oil, natural gas liquids, natural gas and
refined products.  They own an extensive network of pipeline
transportation, terminalling, storage and gathering assets in key
crude oil and NGL producing basins and transportation corridors
and at major market hubs in the United States and Canada.


PNC FINANCIAL: Opposed Bid to Amend "White" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that in White, et al. v. The PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-7928), pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
plaintiffs in September 2016 moved to lift the stay and for
permission to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint. The
proposed amended complaint, if allowed, would add claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and
would assert that the RESPA claim is not barred by the statute of
limitations because every acceptance of a reinsurance premium is a
new "occurrence" for these purposes.

"We have opposed the motion to amend," the Company said.


POOLCORP: Averts Antitrust Class Action After Plaintiffs' Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Robledo, writing for Pool and Spa News, reports that once
and for all, PoolCorp can put the antitrust class action lawsuit
behind it.

After having filed an intent to appeal a decision in PoolCorp's
favor, the plaintiffs in the case opted not to follow through. And
none of the individual plaintiffs can sue on their own.

"We were very pleased that the trial judge granted our motions on
all claims, and we are now glad to have this litigation behind
us," said David Bamberger, PoolCorp's attorney, a partner with DLA
Piper, based in its Washington, D.C. office.

Manuel Perez de la Mesa, CEO of the Covington, La.-based
distributor was more blunt: "It's the only logical outcome,
because there was nothing there," he said. ". . . At the end of
the day, if you do things the right way and do the right thing,
then suits of that kind don't go anywhere."

In 2011, industry professionals and consumers filed suit against
the distributor, claiming it engaged in anticompetitive activity.
The action came immediately after a settlement between PoolCorp
and the Federal Trade Commission, which alleged anticompetitive
behavior but did not find sufficient proof.  The following year,
the plaintiffs named three more defendants -- Big 3 manufacturers
Pentair Aquatic Systems, Hayward Pool Products and Zodiac Pool
Systems.

By summer of 2015, the manufacturers settled.  Mr. Perez de la
Mesa publicly declared a refusal to do the same.  While PoolCorp
has settled in a few lawsuits where it considers itself innocent
or peripheral, he said, "In certain cases where we believe there
is some sort of precedent being established, our tact is more to
pursue those to an end -- or a just end when they're thrown out."

During the summer, PoolCorp received the ruling it sought, with
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Louisiana, finding in the distributor's favor.

Weeks later, the plaintiffs filed an intent to appeal.  But they
ultimately decided against it.  They and their attorneys believed
the original decision would prove difficult to overturn, said Russ
M. Herman, an attorney for the industry professionals who sued
PoolCorp and a partner in New Orleans-based Herman Herman & Katz.

"Judge Sarah Vance was an expert practitioner in antitrust law and
litigation before she went to the federal bench and is looked upon
among judges and lawyers as an expert in the field," he said.  "It
was felt that [her] decision had the facts correctly stated.  It
could have been a dispute on a single legal issue, but it would
cost more to proceed with an appeal in the Fifth Circuit than any
worthwhile recovery that might result."

Because of the settlements, the plaintiffs are essentially
satisfied with the overall outcome of the case, Mr. Herman said.
"We had no objection," he said.

The Big 3 paid a combined $15.95 million -- $6.5 million from
Hayward; $6 million from Pentair and $3.45 million from Zodiac.
For the approximately 3,000 claimants who have been paid,
Mr. Herman said, that amounted to an average of $3,531 each.

Mr. Perez de la Mesa continues to maintain that the lawsuit was
not grounded in principle.  "The motivation for most suits is
financial," he said.  "I have not heard of a homeless person being
sued anytime in the recent past.  If you're successful, you're
more likely to be sued -- any business, any person.  That's a
reality in this day and age of this country."

But Mr. Herman brushed aside that contention.  "I don't think
anybody [is awarded] $16 million in an unjust lawsuit," he said.

Mr. Herman also alluded to the FTC allegations: "The clients were
particularly concerned and aware of government findings which gave
them a substantial basis to support their concerns that they had
been treated unfairly," he said.


PRESTIGE DELIVERY: "Watson" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD WATSON and DAVID CLARY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PRESTIGE DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC.; NICA, INC.; and
THOMAS MCGRATH, Case No. 09-15746, was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The Western
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01823-CB to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon.

Prestige Delivery provides same day and next day delivery and
logistics services in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Evalynn B. Welling, Esq.
          COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1705
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 434 6002
          E-mail: ewelling@cjplaw.org

Prestige Delivery Systems, Inc. is represented by:

          Dean F. Falavolito, Esq.
          Jackson Lewis P.C.
          1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 338 5152
          E-mail: dean.falavolito@jacksonlewis.com


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Defending Against Suit Over CIBC Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
PrivateBancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to its merger
with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

On June 29, 2016, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC"), a
Canadian chartered bank, and CIBC Holdco Inc. ("Holdco"), a
Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of
CIBC, pursuant to which the Company will merge with and into
Holdco, with Holdco surviving the merger. Following the merger,
the Bank will be headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, retain its
Illinois state banking charter and be an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of CIBC. The transaction is expected to close by the
end of the first quarter 2017, pending regulatory and stockholder
approval and other customary closing conditions.

Since the announcement of the proposed transaction with CIBC,
three stockholders of the Company have filed separate putative
class actions on behalf of our public stockholders in the Cook
County Circuit Court, Chicago, Illinois. The three actions have
been consolidated and styled In re PrivateBancorp, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, 2016-CH-08949. All of the actions name as
defendants the Company and each of its directors individually.

The complaints assert that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed transaction. Two of the
complaints are also brought against CIBC and assert that the
Company and CIBC aided and abetted the directors' alleged
breaches. The actions broadly allege that the transaction was the
result of a flawed process, that the price is unfair, and that
certain provisions of the merger agreement might dissuade a
potential suitor from making a competing offer, among other
things.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint, adding a
claim alleging breaches of the fiduciary duty of disclosure by the
directors. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, including damages.
The plaintiffs in the three actions recently have agreed in
principle not to pursue the actions as a result of the inclusion
of certain additional disclosures in the proxy statement for the
Company's special meeting of stockholders.

The defendants, including the Company, believe the demands and
complaints are without merit and there are substantial legal and
factual defenses to the claims asserted.


QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The wage and hour lawsuit titled Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network
Specialists, Inc., et al., remains pending in California, Quanta
Services, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Benton
seeks to represent a class of workers that includes all persons
who worked on TNS projects between June 2002 and the present,
including individuals that TNS retained through 29 staffing
agencies. An amended complaint was filed in August 2007, naming
two additional class representatives, one of whom has since
settled directly with his employer. The plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was heard and denied in May 2012; however,
that decision was appealed, and the case was ultimately remanded
for reconsideration. In September 2015, after a hearing in the
remanded proceeding, the trial court certified the class as to
workers from the various staffing companies at issue. The
plaintiffs seek approximately $16 million for class damages and $5
million in attorneys' fees. Quanta retained liability associated
with this matter pursuant to the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in
December 2012.

Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for
indemnity against the staffing agencies, which employed many of
the individuals in question. In December 2012, the trial court
heard cross-motions for summary judgment filed by TNS and the
staffing agencies pertaining to TNS's demand for indemnity. The
court denied TNS's motion and granted the motions filed by the
staffing agencies. TNS appealed the court's ruling, and in April
2015, the California Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
decision, vacated its award of attorneys' fees, and instructed the
trial court to reconsider its earlier ruling on TNS's indemnity
claims.

At this time, Quanta says it does not believe this matter will
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Quanta Services, Inc., provides specialty contracting services,
offering infrastructure solutions primarily to the electric power
and oil and gas industries in the United States, Canada and
Australia and select other international markets.


QUEENSLAND, AU: Some Palm Island Riot Discrimination Claims Ok'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christie Anderson, writing for Townsville Bulletin, reports that
convicted rioter Lex Wotton says he hopes a landmark Federal Court
ruling that police breached the discrimination act in the days
after a high-profile indigenous death in custody will bring about
change.

Justice Debbie Mortimer ruled earlier on Dec. 5 that some, but not
all, claims of discrimination would proceed and awarded $220,000
in damages.

Mr Wotton who led the class action on behalf of the Palm Island
community, was awarded $95,000 of those damages.

Mr Wotton told the Bulletin outside court he was pleased with the
result and he hoped changes would be made to how indigenous people
are dealt with by police.

"I was very overwhelmed and a bit emotional in some senses to just
hear what was handed down when it came to racial discrimination
act and how, we were as a community and as individuals
discriminated against," he said.

"Hopefully it will change a lot of things in the police area and
it will get back to what was discussed some 25 years ago about the
Royal Commission into aboriginal deaths in custody.

"Hopefully they will start to implement some of those
recommendations.

"There need to be a change in a lot of areas as we know."

Justice Mortimer found that Queensland Police officers who
investigated Cameron Doomadgee's death, did not act impartially
and independently.

She also ruled that QPS failed to communicate with the Palm Island
community during the riots and the emergency declaration and the
use of Special Emergency Response Team police was excessive.

"During the SERT operations, armed, masked SERT officers broke
into the houses of 18 families on Palm Island, with assault rifles
raised, confronting unarmed men, women and children in and around
those houses," Justice Mortimer stated in her summary ruling.

"Mr Wotton was tasered in front of his family.

"I have found the use of SERT officers to effect the arrests was
unnecessary, disproportionate and undertaken as a show of force
against local people who had protested about the conduct of
police."

Palm Island residents rioted following the death in custody of
Cameron Doomadgee in 2004, burning down the island's police
station, courthouse, barracks and a police officer's house.

A state of emergency was then declared before masked and heavily
armed police raided 18 homes resulting in three people being
convicted for riot-related offences.

Justice Mortimer said while handing down her decision that Senior
Sergeant Chris Hurley should have been suspended from duty
following Cameron Doomadgee's death and treated as a suspect.

She also criticised police for providing inaccurate information to
the Coroner.

Justice Mortimer deferred the decision about an apology from the
State Government requested by Mr Wotton to hear further
submissions.


RAYONIER INC: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case, In re
Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, is now in the discovery
phase.

Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and
filing of the restated interim financial statements for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014,
shareholders of the Company filed five putative class actions
against the Company and Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort,
David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker arising from circumstances
described in the November 2014 Announcement, entitled
respectively:

     * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01395; filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier
Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13,
2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida;

     * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida; and

     * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-
08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474.

On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on
January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015.

On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. In the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs added
allegations as to and added as a defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a
former officer of Rayonier. With the filing of the Consolidated
Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin Kiker were dropped from the
case as defendants.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint on May 15, 2015. After oral argument on Defendants'
motions on August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated
Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile.
Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
on September 25, 2015, which continued to assert claims against
the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs. Boynton and Vanden
Noort.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
on October 26, 2015. The court denied those motions on May 20,
2016.  The case is now in the discovery phase.

"At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether
there is a reasonable likelihood a material loss has been incurred
nor can the range of any such loss be estimated," the Company
said.

Rayonier is a timberland real estate investment trust with assets
located in some of the most productive softwood timber growing
regions in the United States and New Zealand.


REVLON INC: Awaits Filing of 2nd Consolidated Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. and Revlon Consumer Products Corporation said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016, that counsel of a class action lawsuit has
advised that post consummation of the Company's merger with
Elizabeth Arden they were going to file a Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, but to date no such complaint has
been filed.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth Arden
Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the
Merger. In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of
plaintiffs Parker, Christiansen, Ross and Stein, on July 25, 2016,
a lawsuit (Hutson v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-
16-013566) (referred to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed in
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida (the "Court") against Elizabeth Arden, the members of the
board of directors of Elizabeth Arden, Revlon, Products
Corporation and Acquisition Sub.

In general, the Hutson complaint alleges that: (i) the members of
Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Elizabeth Arden's shareholders with respect to the
Merger, by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to
an unfair process and at an inadequate and unfair price; and (ii)
Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's
board. The plaintiff seeks relief similar to that sought in the
Parker case.

By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated by
the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action. Thereafter, on
August 11, 2016 a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger
and/or from soliciting shareholder votes. To the extent that the
Merger was consummated, the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or recover rescissory or
other compensatory damages, along with costs and fees. The grounds
for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the
five individual complaints, as previously disclosed. Class counsel
advised that post consummation of the Merger they were going to
file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, but to
date no such complaint has been filed.

The Company believes the allegations contained in the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of
or relating to the Elizabeth Arden Merger Agreement or the Merger
may be filed in the future.

Revlon, Inc. conducts its business exclusively through its direct
wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Revlon Consumer Products
Corporation, and its subsidiaries, including Elizabeth Arden, Inc.
Revlon is an indirect majority-owned subsidiary of MacAndrews &
Forbes Incorporated, a corporation wholly-owned by Ronald O.
Perelman.  Revlon is a global beauty company with an iconic
portfolio of brands.


SAMSUNG: Korean Note 7 Users Won't Get Additional Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cho Mu-Hyun, writing for ZDNet, reports that Samsung Electronics
will not offer any additional compensation for Galaxy Note 7 users
in Korea besides what it offered them following the recall, the
company has said.

Around 2,400 consumers in South Korea who bought the Note 7 have
filed a class action lawsuit to the Seoul Central District Court
against Samsung, asking for 500,000 won in compensation for each.

The consumers said the recall forced them to visit stores at least
four times: when they bought the device, when they had to check
the battery safety, when they had to exchange the device for a new
Note 7, and lastly, when they had to exchange their second Note 7
for another device.

In its reply filed to court on November 30, the company said it
was not obligated to compensate consumers who received a new
device after having their Note 7s recalled.

Samsung said it has offered the maximum compensation and benefits
possible for consumers who bought the phablet.

It also stressed that it took near 10 trillion won in losses to
fully refund the device.  It said if the court finds that Samsung
needs to offer additional compensation, it will set a negative
precedent that will make future voluntarily, preventive, and
active recalls impossible in the future.

Samsung ended the global sales of the Note 7 on October 11 due to
the phone catching fire and two recalls that failed to find the
cause.

It plans to offer a 50 percent discount on the Note 8 and S8 when
they come out next year for those who bought the Note 7 in South
Korea.

To offset losses, in November Samsung launched a blue coral
version of the S7 -- a newly introduced color for the phablet.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Miller" Suit Over Chromebooks Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, SCOTT MILLER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-4076 (ES) (MAH) (D.N.J.),
Plaintiff Scott Miller brings the action, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated individuals, alleging misrepresentations
relating to Defendant's Series 3 Chromebook laptop. On August 15,
2013, Plaintiff purchased a Series 3 Chromebook in Florida. After
making the purchase, Plaintiff discovered that the SuperSpeed port
was "incapable of achieving the data transfer rates required by
the USB 3.0 specifications." On June 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed his
original Complaint. Defendant moved to dismiss on September 5,
2014.

On June 29, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part
and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint. In particular, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's
claim for injunctive relief. Essentially, the Court held that
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint did not allege that Plaintiff
intended to purchase a Series 3 Chromebook in the future, thus
failing to allege that he would be injured by Defendant's
misrepresentation. Moreover, the Court also held that there was no
basis to determine that Plaintiff would suffer continued exposure
to Defendant's alleged misrepresentations.

Plaintiff subsequently filed the Second Amended Complaint on
August 3, 2015 alleging four causes of action (1) violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla.
Stat. Section 501.201 et seq. and Florida's misleading advertising
statute, Fla. Stat. Section 817.41; (2) fraud and
misrepresentation under Florida common law; (3) declaratory
judgment, Fla. Stat. Section 86.011 et seq.; and (4) class
equitable relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2).

On September 18, 2015, Defendant moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint contending that Count Four of Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. According to
Defendant, plaintiffs in consumer class actions who are on notice
of alleged deficiencies or misrepresentations do not have Article
III standing to seek injunctive relief. In the alternative,
Defendant sought dismissal of Counts One through Three for failure
to state a claim.

In response, Plaintiff contends that the threatened invasion of
the rights conferred by the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act create the injury for purposes of Article III
standing. According to Plaintiff, the invasion of his statutory
right to receive truthful information from sellers about their
products constitutes injury. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that he
need not allege that he is likely to suffer the same injury, but
rather that he will be wronged in a similar way.

In her Opinion dated November 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/6GxwNt from Leagle.com, Judge Esther Salas held that
Plaintiff failed to establish Article III standing and his
argument that the threatened invasion of a statutorily-conferred
right provides the requisite injury for Article III standing is
unavailing because the Plaintiff must still establish that he is
likely to suffer future injury.  Judge Salas granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss without prejudice to Plaintiff asserting the
dismissed Count Four in the proper forum.

Scott Miller is represented by Michael John Debenedictis, Esq. --
mjd@debenedictislaw.com -- DEBENEDICTIS & DEBENEDICTIS LLC

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is represented by Michael R.
Mcdonald, Esq. -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- and Jennifer Marino
Thibodaux,  Esq. -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC


SANTA MONICA, CA: "Rosenblatt" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Otis D. Wright II entered an order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case styled as, ARLENE ROSENBLATT, the
Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA and THE CITY COUNCIL OF SANTA
MONICA, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04481-ODW-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), but gave the Plaintiff leave to amend within 30 days of the
date of the Order.

Because each of Rosenblatt's claims has been dismissed, the Court
denied as moot Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification and
motion for preliminary injunction.

This case is about the rights of residential property owners in
the City of Santa Monica to rent out their property on a short-
term basis through online services such as Airbnb and HomeAway.
Rosenblatt filed suit against the City of Santa Monica and the
City Council of Santa Monica, claiming to represent a putative
class of persons restricted from engaging in property rentals and
asserting that Santa Monica's Ordinance No. 2484CCS infringes on
her constitutional right to rent out her property.

The Court said Defendants' redressability arguments are based on
the fact that a Santa Monica zoning ordinance, enacted years prior
to the Ordinance's enactment, would take effect to ban vacation
rentals even if the Court found the Ordinance unconstitutional.
The Court finds that the potential local benefits of the Ordinance
outweigh any effect on interstate commerce.

As Rosenblatt notes in her Complaint, Santa Monica is "one of the
most popular and desirable destinations in the country."
Rosenblatt has not demonstrated that the non-availability of
vacation rentals will change this. Moreover, if tourists wish to
rent a space other than a traditional hotel, that option will
remain available to them within the bounds of the ordinance.
Overall, there is no discrimination against out-of-staters present
in the Ordinance, and any speculative effect it may have on
interstate commerce is outweighed by the benefits the Ordinance
will bring the City. As a result, the Court grants Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Order dated Dec. 1, 2016,  is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i9aelyWS


SESA FLEET: "Faragoza" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Faragoza, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. S.E.S.A. Fleet Services, L.L.C., Chris Vela and Florentino Vela
III, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00672 (S.D. Tex., December 2,
2016), seeks damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides maintenance and repair services for the oil and
gas industries throughout the United States where Plaintiff was
employed at their Weslaco TX facility. He claims to have been
denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      DANIEL B. ROSS, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 474-7677
      Fax: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com


SLATER & GORDON: Anchorage Capital Buys Slice of Debt Amid Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a slice of debt in Slater & Gordon has been purchased by
New York distressed loan specialist Anchorage Capital Group.

Anchorage picked up a portion of debt in Slater & Gordon that was
held by Citigroup in November, according to sources.

The New York group was part of a syndicate of second-tier lenders
that bought Citigroup's debt in Slater & Gordon for 38› in the
dollar.

The acquisition of the debt by Anchorage has sparked speculation
that the way is being paved for a potential rescue of the company
next year.

Slater & Gordon has net debt of $682 .3 million and a market
capitalisation of $111 million as of close of trade on Dec. 2.

However, such a plan is expected to be dependent on Slater &
Gordon's main bankers National Australia Bank and Westpac on-
selling their debt.

Westpac has already recognised its $300 million exposure to Slater
& Gordon as a stressed loan, and NAB is believed to have done the
same with its exposure.

Unlike major banks, second-tier lenders are often more flexible in
their approach to a company that has a strong underlying business
but terrible balance sheet.

Second-tier lenders can also be more aggressive in calling for
restructures or recapitalisations.

Several financially troubled companies in Australia have faced
similar situations of having their debt on-sold to second-tier
lenders and had bright futures, most notably shopping centre owner
Centro.

Anchorage, which is not affiliated with Australian private equity
house Anchorage Capital Partners of Dick Smith fame, was involved
in the debt-for-equity swap that brought energy company Alinta
back from the brink of collapse. Other companies, such as Nine
Entertainment, have also been able to get over their debt troubles
while having second-tier lenders holding their debt.

Similarly to Centro, Slater & Gordon also has a $250 million class
action hanging over its head.

Citigroup was an adviser and underwriter along with Greenhills on
Slater & Gordon's ill-fated acquisition of the professional
services business of British group Quindell last year.  Citi also
provided a portion of the debt used to underpin the $1.3 billion
acquisition.

Within months of the acquisition being sealed Quindell was subject
to the SFO investigation in Britain and was forced to restate its
accounts for its 2013 year.

Slater & Gordon booked an $879 million-plus impairment in 2016, of
which $814.2 million related to the writedown in goodwill in its
Quindell business, underperformance in the British operations and
an adverse movement in work in progress of $41.3 million.

As a result Slater & Gordon posted a $1 billion-plus loss in 2016.

The company was also forced to restate its accounts during 2016
after an investigation by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission.


SOLARCTY CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied the
motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, RAVI
WHITWORTH, Plaintiff, v. SOLARCITY CORP., Defendant, Case No. 16-
CV-01540-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff worked for SolarCity as a Photo Installer II from August
24, 2015 to November 10, 2015 in their Berkeley location as a
nonexempt hourly employee. Plaintiff received an offer packet from
SolarCity prior to commencing his employment. The packet contained
(1) an offer letter, (2) an employment agreement, and (3) a
compensation acknowledgement form. The offer letter required
Plaintiff to sign the employment agreement and noted that
Plaintiff must agree that all disputes would be fully and finally
resolved by binding arbitration. The agreement -- titled "At-will
employment, confidential information, invention assignment, and
arbitration agreement" -- is governed by the Federal Arbitration
Act and covers "any disputes."

In the putative class and collective action, Plaintiff contends
that his employer, SolarCity, failed to pay overtime wages and
failed to compensate employees for all hours worked in violation
of federal and state labor laws. In March 2016, Plaintiff filed
the putative class and collective action on behalf of himself and
a class of similarly situated individuals alleging nine claims for
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the California
Labor Code, California's Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
Plaintiff contends that SolarCity failed to (1) pay employees
involved in the installation and maintenance of solar systems for
travel time during the workday; (2) provide these same employees
with statutorily protected meal and rest breaks; and (3) indemnify
these employees for reasonable business expenses.

SolarCity moved to compel arbitration seeking to enforce the
arbitration agreement and class action waiver. The Court stayed
the motion pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in
Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No.13-16599. Following the Ninth
Circuit's ruling in Morris holding that motion to compel as the
class action waiver in the parties' arbitration agreement is
invalid and unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA), the Court lifted the stay and held a Case Management
Conference.

In her Order dated November 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/1eX5gW from Leagle.com, Judge Corley held that the
entire arbitration agreement is unenforceable because a court
cannot compel arbitration of class claims where the parties did
not contract to submit to class-wide arbitration. Not only did the
parties not contract for class-wide arbitration, the arbitration
agreement expressly deprives an arbitrator of any authority to
arbitrate any class, collective, representative, or private
attorney general action.  The Court directed SolarCity to respond
to the pleading.

A Case Management Conference was set for December 8 in the case.

Ravi Whitworth, Plaintiff, represented by Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
-- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- Julia Rabinovich, Esq. --
jrabinovich@outtengolden.com -- and Robert Neil Fisher, Esq. --
rfisher@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

SolarCity Corp. is represented by Lisa Lin Garcia, Esq. --
llgarcia@littler.com -- and Richard Howard Rahm, Esq. --
rrahm@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON


SOUTH STATE CORP: Plaintiff Withdraws Merger Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
South State Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the plaintiff
in a merger class action lawsuit has advised the Court that he is
withdrawing his motion for a preliminary injunction and his
complaint.

On June 16, 2016, South State Corporation, ("SSB") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Southeastern Bank Financial
Corporation, a Georgia corporation ("SBFC"), and a bank holding
company headquartered in Augusta, Georgia.

The Company said, "In connection with the proposed merger of South
State and Southeastern, on August 25, 2016, John Solak, a
purported stockholder of South State, brought a class action
lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial
Circuit in the State of South Carolina, County of Richland (which
we refer to as the "Court"), captioned Solak v. South State
Corporation, et al., No. 2016-CP-40-05162 (the "Action").  The
Action named as defendants South State and the South State board
and alleged that the South State board breached its fiduciary
duties by filing a joint proxy statement/prospectus with the SEC
on August 19, 2016 (which we refer to as the "initial joint proxy
statement/prospectus"), which initial joint proxy
statement/prospectus allegedly failed to disclose material facts
concerning certain financial projections of Southeastern prepared
by South State and certain inputs used by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods,
Inc., South State's financial advisor in connection with the
merger.  The Action sought, among other things, to preliminarily
enjoin South State from consummating the merger or any vote
thereon. Also on August 25, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction with the Court."

"On October 6, 2016, the plaintiff advised the Court that he is
withdrawing his motion for a preliminary injunction and his
complaint, but asked the Court to retain jurisdiction to consider
an application for attorney's fees.  To date, no such application
has been made."


SOUTHERN COPPER: Discovery Underway in Lacey-Siegried Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the lawsuit filed
by Carla Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated stockholders of the Company and
derivatively on behalf of the Company, is currently in the
discovery process.

A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in
February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of
MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de
C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM
Capitalization"), the Company's entry into a power purchase
agreement with MGE in 2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"),
and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican
Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to
supply power to the Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan
Restructuring"). The action purports to be brought on behalf of
the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power
Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result
of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company's charter.

The Company has filed a response denying these allegations and is
currently in the discovery process.

Southern Copper Corporation is an integrated producer of copper
and other minerals, and operates mining, smelting and refining
facilities in Peru and Mexico.  The Company is a Delaware
corporation and is a majority-owned, indirect subsidiary of Grupo
Mexico S.A.B. de C.V.


STAPLES INC: Faces "Torczyner" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Staples, Inc. The
case is captioned Neil Torczyner, on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Staples, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02965-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 6,
2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino.

Staples, Inc. is an American multinational office supply retailing
corporation, with over 3,000 stores worldwide in 26 countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R Stickney, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
          BERGER AND GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793 0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793 0323
          E-mail: davids@blbglaw.com


STEEL & TUBE: Commerce Commission to Sue Over Substandard Mesh
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Harris, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that the
Commerce Commission has told three companies including Steel &
Tube that it will prosecute them over allegedly sub-standard steel
mesh.

The commission said it planned to issue criminal proceedings early
next year under the Fair Trading Act against three companies,
which it would not name to give them a chance to seek name
suppression.

But NZX-listed Steel & Tube has chosen to identify itself, saying
the case against itself related to testing practices, not the mesh
itself.

"The commission's decision in relation to Steel & Tube relates to
the application of the testing methodologies, not the performance
characteristics of our seismic mesh."

The commission has been investigating claims since August last
year that some steel mesh sold up to April this year was below the
Australian/New Zealand building standard.

Several other companies are still under investigation.

Two other companies, were disciplined to a lesser degree. Fletcher
Steel was issued with a warning for "engaging in conduct that was
likely to breach the act" for re-testing its product in a non-
standard manner.

However, the commission was satisfied that Fletcher's mesh met the
standard.

Another firm, United Steel, has been issued with compliance
advice, also for re-testing methods.

All of the commission's investigations relates to grade 500E
seismic steel mesh, which is often used to strengthen concrete
slabs like house foundation slabs and driveways.

Early testing results gave the commission concerns about the
mesh's "ductility" or flexibility, but later it also became
worried about testing procedures being used.

It will charge the companies concerned with not meeting the
standard and making "unsubstantiated representations" that the
mesh complied with the standard, when it did not.

Commission chairman Dr Mark Berry said the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment was the body that set and enforced the
building code, but the commission could take legal action "where
we see misleading or deceptive claims about compliance."

In November, MBIE clarified its standard and made changes to the
testing requirements.

"This should give New Zealanders greater confidence that the steel
mesh currently being sold in New Zealand meets the standard," Dr
Berry said.

Steel and Tube, which has called for a review of the testing
standard to resolve ambiguities, said the mesh investigation was
clearly an industry issue and it was glad the standard had been
clarified.

"Ambiguities in the testing standard resulted in seismic mesh
manufacturers and accredited testing laboratories applying
different testing methodologies, and it has impacted everyone in
the industry," chief executive Dave Taylor said.

He said the court case should not slow down any building project
using its mesh, as it was externally tested by accredited
laboratories.

". . .Despite the Commerce Commission's decision, we stand by our
products and have confidence in them."

Mr. Taylor said homeowners could take "significant reassurance"
from MBIE, the Insurance Council and the Structural Engineering
Society that they should not be unnecessarily concerned.

But Auckland lawyer Adina Thorn, whose firm is looking at taking
class action against faulty mesh manufacturers, said the
commission's move was "consistent with everything we're doing".

She urged people with new houses or commercial buildings, or who
had had a recent alteration done, to consider signing up.

"I'm saying that anybody who had a house built in the last five
years should just register, it costs absolutely nothing and let us
work out whether you might have a claim."

She said the Commerce Commission could seek fines against
companies but compensation usually had to be sought separately.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Suit Remains Pending in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust
Bank.

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,
2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.
Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and
criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and
purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who
incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the
complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an
interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate.

The Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16,
2012, the Court entered an order holding that the Bank's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out
for the putative class members.

The Bank filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was
dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely
granted.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014.
Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification and on
September 8, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to hear the
appeal.

On January 4, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral argument
on the appeal. On July 8, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed
the Court of Appeals of Georgia and remanded the case for further
proceedings.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in 401(k) Plan Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the District Court
has granted certain non-fiduciary defendants' motion for summary
judgment as it relates to them in the Company Stock Class Action.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover
alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result
of their investment in Company stock.

This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26,
2009, an amended complaint was filed.

On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs
permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The
Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision
of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which
substantially similar issues are presented.

On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided that appeal in favor of
The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an
order remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case.

On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal
of this decision in the Circuit Court.

Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that
employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption
of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Circuit
Court remanded the case back to the District Court for further
proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer.

On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The discovery
process has begun.

On August 17, 2016, the District Court entered an order that among
other things granted certain of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. According to the Order, the class is defined as
"All persons, other than Defendants and members of their immediate
families, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") at any time
between May 15, 2007 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and whose accounts included investments in SunTrust
common stock ("SunTrust Stock") during that time period and who
sustained a loss to their account as a result of the investment in
SunTrust Stock."

On August 1, 2016, certain non-fiduciary defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment as it relates to them, which was granted by
the District Court on October 5, 2016.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery is
ongoing in the Mutual Funds Class Actions.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent
motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining
claims.

On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this
action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014,
the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the
original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals
requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the
appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9,
2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December
16, 2014.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order
transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court

granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this case until the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a decision in Tibble v. Edison International.
On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held
that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from
investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments.
After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the
District Court.

On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. The
Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on
June 6, 2016 and discovery is ongoing.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Feb. 6 Final Hearing in "Felix" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing on final
settlement approval has been scheduled for February 6, 2017, in
the case, Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

This putative class action was filed against STM on April 4, 2016.
Plaintiff alleges that STM breaches its contract with borrowers
when it collects interest on FHA loans at repayment because STM
fails to use an approved FHA notice form. Plaintiff also alleges
that STM violates the Georgia usury statute by collecting such
interest. Plaintiff attempts to bring the breach of contract claim
on behalf of all borrowers and the usury claim on behalf of
Georgia borrowers.

Plaintiff and STM reached a settlement of the action with the
class, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
September 9, 2016. The settlement terms had an insignificant
impact on the Company's financial position. A hearing on final
approval has been scheduled for February 6, 2017.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Appeal by Settlement Objectors Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal by the
objectors to the class action settlement remains pending before
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company said, "On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was
filed against us and our previous e-commerce vendor Digital River,
Inc.; the lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust
enrichment related to prior sales of Extended Download Service
("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI")."

"On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these
products between January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011.

"In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which we would pay the plaintiffs $30 million, which
we accrued.

"On October 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was subsequently paid into escrow by us. The
Court granted final approval on April 22, 2016, and entered
judgment in the case.

"Objectors to the settlement have appealed to the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, challenging the Court's approval of the
settlement."

Symantec Corporation provides cybersecurity.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss TelexFree Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Synovus Bank's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit related to the TelexFree litigation
remains pending before the court.

On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re:
TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH,
United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with
numerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit.
An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which
consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted.

The claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by
Plaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus-related
entities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending.

TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC, an
independent sales organization/member service provider sponsored
by Synovus Bank. The purported class action lawsuit generally
alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing
scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services
and that the various defendants, including Synovus Bank, provided
financial services to TelexFree that allowed TelexFree to conduct
its business operations.

Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 1,
2015, which remains pending before the court.

Synovus believes it has substantial defenses related to these
purported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claims
asserted. Synovus currently cannot reasonably estimate losses
attributable to this matter.

Synovus Financial Corp. is a financial services company and a
registered bank holding company headquartered in Columbus,
Georgia. Through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Synovus Bank, member
FDIC, the company provides commercial and retail banking in
addition to a full suite of specialized products and services
including private banking, treasury management, wealth management,
and international banking. Synovus also provides mortgage
services, financial planning, and investment advisory services
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Synovus Mortgage, Synovus
Trust, and Synovus Securities, as well as its GLOBALT and Creative
Financial Group divisions. With the completion of its acquisition
of Entaire Global Companies, Inc. on October 1, 2016, the company
also provides life insurance premium financing through its Global
One division.


TEMPSNOW EMPLOYMENT: Murdock-Alexander's Amended Complaint Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Robert Blakey of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part
Defendants' motion to (1) strike Plaintiff's class allegations
pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23 and 12(f); and
(2) dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) in the case captioned, PLAZ HALL MURDOCK-ALEXANDER, JR.,
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated laborers,
Plaintiff, v. TEMPSNOW EMPLOYMENT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC and
EMCO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC. Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-5182
(N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Plaz Hall Murdock-Alexander, Jr. (Plaintiff) filed the
putative class action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. (Title VII),
and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section
1981, against Defendants TempsNow Employment and Placement
Services, LLC (TempsNow) and EMCO Chemical Distributors, Inc.
(EMCO) (collectively, Defendants), for alleged discriminatory
hiring practices. Plaintiff, who is African American, claims that
from May 2012 through the present, TempsNow refused to assign him
and other African American laborers to its client companies,
including EMCO, on the basis of race.

Plaintiff filed suit in the Court on May 12, 2016. Plaintiff
asserts that TempsNow intentionally refused to assign him and
other African American laborers to its client companies, including
EMCO, on the basis of race. In his First Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff raises six class action causes of action that, for the
purposes of the present motions, can be subdivided into two
categories: (1) disparate treatment claims under 42 U.S.C. Section
1981 and Title VII against TempsNow (Counts I and III,
respectively) and EMCO (Counts II and V, respectively); and (2)
disparate impact claims under Title VII against TempsNow and EMCO
(Counts IV and VI, respectively).

Defendants argue that Plaintiff will be unable to meet Rule
23(a)'s commonality requirement and Rule 23(b)'s predominance
requirement. Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state plausible
claims for relief, exceeds the scope of Plaintiff's original EEOC
Charges, and violates Title VII's statute of limitations.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 21, 2016
available at https://is.gd/EQuyq5 from Leagle.com, Judge Blakey
held that Plaintiff failed to establish Article III standing and
his argument that the threatened invasion of a statutorily-
conferred right provides the requisite injury for Article III
standing is unavailing because the Plaintiff must still establish
that he is likely to suffer future injury. It appears that the
Court cannot preclude Plaintiff from asserting his dismissed claim
for injunctive relief in the proper forum.

Plaz Hall Murdock-Alexander, Jr. is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (708)586-9529

Temps Now Employment and Placement Services, LLC is represented by
Christina Rose Spiezia, Esq. -- cspiezia@gordonrees.com -- James
H. Ryan, Esq. -- jryan@gordonrees.com -- and Lindsay A. Watson,
Esq. -- lwatson@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES, LLP

Emco Chemical Distributors, Inc. is represented by Julie A.
Proscia, Esq. -- jproscia@salawus.com -- Michael F. Hughes, Esq.
-- mhughes@salawus.com -- and Noah A. Frank, Esq. --
nfrank@salawus.com -- SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC


TOTAL SYSTEM: CPAY Still Defends "Heidarpour" Suit in M.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Central
Payment Co., LLC (CPAY), a majority owned joint venture of the
Company, has been named as a defendant in a purported class action
complaint, Heidarpour v. Central Payment Co., LLC, Civil Action
No. 4:15-cv-00139, filed August 18, 2015 in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, relating to the
activities of Korthals, LLC ("Korthals") and its sole shareholder,
an independent sales agent of CPAY. The complaint alleges that
CPAY retained Korthals to send unsolicited commercial pre-recorded
messages to residential phone numbers in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sections 227 et
seq.). The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief among
other remedies. The parties are conducting motion practice. There
is no trial date set.

While the Company and CPAY intend to vigorously defend matters
arising out of the relationship of CPAY with Korthals and believe
CPAY has substantial defenses related to these purported claims,
the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate losses
attributable to this matter.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Class Action Discovery Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that all
discovery in the TelexFree class action litigation is stayed
pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings against
certain former principals of TelexFree, Inc.

ProPay, Inc. (ProPay), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named
as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of TelexFree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals. TelexFree is a former merchant customer of ProPay.
With regard to TelexFree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper
activities of TelexFree.  TelexFree filed for bankruptcy
protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently
transferred to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to TelexFree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere,
et al. v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions").  On October
21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred and consolidated the Actions before the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the
"Consolidated Action").

Following the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's October
21, 2014 order, four additional cases arising from the alleged
TelexFree scheme were transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings, including (i) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et
al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080); (ii) Magalhaes
v. TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (iii)
Griffith v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); Abelgadir
v. Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.)  In addition, on
September 23, 2015, a putative class action relating to TelexFree
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, styled Rita Dos Santos, Putative Class Representatives
and those Similarly Situated v. TelexElectric, LLP et al., 2:15-
cv-01906-NVW (the "Arizona Action"). The Arizona Action makes
claims similar to those alleged in the consolidated action pending
before the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. On September 29, 2015, a group of certain
defendants to the Consolidated Action, including ProPay, filed a
"tag along" notice with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, asking that the Arizona Action be transferred to the
District of Massachusetts where it can be consolidated or
coordinated with the Consolidated Action.  On October 20, 2015,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
Arizona Action to the District of Massachusetts.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the putative class
of plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. On March 31, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain
TelexFree "memberships" and suffered a "net loss" between January
1, 2012 and April 16, 2014.  The Consolidated Complaint supersedes
the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, and
alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by
TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of
providing payment processing services to TelexFree.

On April 30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which amends
and supersedes the Consolidated Complaint.  Like the Consolidated
Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that
ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and
that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing
payment processing services to TelexFree.

Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015.  Briefing on those motions
closed on October 16, 2015.  The court held a hearing on the
motions to dismiss on November 2, 2015.  At present, pursuant to a
court order, all discovery in the action is stayed pending the
resolution of parallel criminal proceedings against certain former
principals of TelexFree, Inc.

ProPay has also received various subpoenas, a seizure warrant and
other inquiries requesting information regarding TelexFree from
(i) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Securities Division, (ii)
United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (iii) US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and (iv) the bankruptcy
Trustee of the Chapter 11 entities of TelexFree, Inc., TelexFree,
LLC and TelexFree Financial, Inc.  Pursuant to the seizure warrant
served by the United States Attorney's Office for the District of
Massachusetts, ProPay delivered all funds associated with
TelexFree held for chargeback and other purposes by ProPay to US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  In addition, ProPay received
a notice of potential claim from the bankruptcy Trustee as a
result of the relationship of ProPay with TelexFree and its
affiliates.

The proceedings and actions are preliminary in nature.  While the
Company and ProPay intend to vigorously defend matters arising out
of the relationship of ProPay with TelexFree and believe ProPay
has substantial defenses related to these purported claims, the
Company currently cannot reasonably estimate losses attributable
to these matters.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Answer to Second Amended Class Action Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that TNB has filed its
answer to a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in three lawsuits related to the collapse of the
Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a purported class action
complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court
of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott,
Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein
and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group)
and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by
one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds
that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial
Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.  Plaintiffs
have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010,
all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.

In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.

In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.

In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues.

In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint
that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant
financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged
fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.

In March 2015, the court entered an order authorizing the parties
to conduct discovery regarding class certification and setting a
deadline for the parties to complete briefing on class
certification issues.

In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and
the OSIC's claims.  The court dismissed all of the Class
Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of
the OSIC's claims.  The court denied the motions by TNB and the
other financial institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims.

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and
participating in conversion and (v) conspiracy.

On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in
the action.

On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also
denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution
defendants to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the
OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims.

On August 24, 2016, TNB filed its answer to the SAC.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
All Stanford-related lawsuits are in pre-trial stages.

Trustmark Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.  Through its subsidiaries, Trustmark
operates as a financial services organization providing banking
and financial solutions to corporate institutions and individual
customers through 194 offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi,
Tennessee and Texas.


TSUNAMI: Faces "Vongkultrup" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Vongkultrup and Sanchai Som, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tsunami in St.
Petersburg Inc. d/b/a Tsunami Japanese Steakhouse and Gary Lin,
Case No. 8:16-cv-03327-JDW-AAS (M.D. Fla., December 5, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in St. Petersburg,
Pinellas County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


UNITED STATES: Sends Buy-Back Offers to Blackfeet Landowners
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Franz, writing for Flathead Beacon, reports that the
federal government has sent offers to nearly 7,000 landowners on
the Blackfeet Indian Reservation valued at more than $270 million
as part of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations.

Landowners on and off the reservation will be receiving the offers
in the coming days and will have until Jan. 17 to respond.
Blackfeet Tribal Business Council Chairman Harry Barnes said the
individual offers range from a few hundred dollars to more than $1
million.

"This will have a tremendous impact on the community," Mr. Barnes
said.

The offers to buy fractionated sections of land are part of a
program established by the Department of Interior as part of the
Elouise Cobell settlement. According to the federal agency, in
2012 there were more than 2.9 million fractional interests in
Indian Country.  Over the past century, land has become
fractionated because the children of individual tribal owners have
inherited undivided common ownership interests in the land. When
those inheritors die, their children and family inherit the land
and within a few generations dozens of people own a single piece
of land.  In one extreme instance, a single tract of land on South
Dakota's Crow Creek Reservation had more than 1,200 owners.

The mismanagement of land and trust funds was at the center of
Cobell's class-action lawsuit against the federal government that
was settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion; $1.4 billion of which went
to the plaintiffs and the rest set aside to repurchase and de-
fracture land.

The Flathead Indian Reservation was one of the first to benefit
from the program, and in 2014 and 2015 the federal government
purchased $10.3 million worth of land in Flathead, Lake, Sanders
and Missoula counties.

In May, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell came to Browning to
announce that the program was being extended to the Blackfeet
Indian Reservation.  Over the summer, tribal and federal officials
began evaluating the value of the fractured land. According to the
Interior Department, there are more than 6,700 fractured tracts of
land on the Blackfeet Reservation held by more than 8,100 people,
totaling more than 812,000 acres, or about 60 percent of the
reservation.  The Blackfeet Reservation has the third highest
amount of fractured land in the U.S.

Mr. Barnes said at least five offers that were sent out on
Nov. 28 were worth more than $1 million.  Thirty percent of the
individual offers were valued at more than $100,000 and another 30
percent were worth $1,000 or less.

Mr. Barnes said if a landowner decides to accept the offer, they
would be paid within 10 days.  The land would then be handed over
to the tribe within six months, Mr. Barnes said.  At that point,
the tribe would be able to lease the land for grazing or
development. Other tribes have used the land to build community
housing and water treatment plants.

"We don't know what parcels of land will be coming to the tribe
and we don't know the location or size of what we'll be getting,
but we're hopeful we will be able to use some of it to benefit the
tribal agricultural program," he said.

Mr. Barnes said as part of the program, the tribe is also offering
financial management courses to its members.

Although the federal government has spent over $1.9 billion on the
buy-back program, federal officials said it is still not enough to
purchase all of the fractured land across the country. In May,
Jewell urged Congress to consider extending the program beyond
2022.

Mr. Barnes echoed that hope.

"This isn't going to cure the entire problem of fractured land,
but it's going to help a lot," he said.


UNITED STATES: March 16 Final Settlement Hearing in "Hart"
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement in the case captioned, KEVIN HART, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-00623-JST (N.D.
Cal.).

The Court sets the Final Approval Hearing for March 16, 2017 at
2:00 p.m.

The case is a putative class action about the evidence that
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) may properly consider in
determining whether claimants are entitled to disability benefits
from the Social Security Administration (SSA).  Named Plaintiffs
Kevin Hart, Nina Silva-Collins, and Lee Harris represent a class
of individuals who received a consultative examination (CE)
performed by Dr. Frank Chen, a physician who is now disqualified,
in connection with their applications for award or review of
disability benefits from the SSA. Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin is
the Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

Named Plaintiffs Kevin Hart, Nina Silva-Collins, and Lee Harris
all sought the award or renewal of disability benefits from SSA.
Dr. Frank Chen performed CEs on all of the Named Plaintiffs in
connection with their applications for award or renewal of
disability benefits. Named Plaintiffs allege various deficiencies
with these examinations.

On August 17, 2015, the Court referred the parties for a
Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James,
scheduled for November 2015. The parties engaged in settlement
discussions in person, by phone, and by email in the intervening
months. The first Settlement Conference took place on November 17,
2015.

The parties subsequently had six additional Settlement Conferences
with Magistrate Judge James: on December 18, 2015, April 5, 2016,
April 28, 2016, May 19, 2016, July 13, 2016, and July 28, 2016.
The parties reached an agreement on September 19, 2016. Defendants
agreed to "pay attorney's fees, both for pre-approval work already
incurred and for post-approval work in the future, and
reimbursement of expenses and costs by Plaintiff's counsel Justice
in Aging and Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County in the amount
of $490,000."

On August 6, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, seeking to certify a class of "all persons whose
SSI or SSDI benefits were either denied or terminated and for whom
a consultative examination was prepared by Dr. Frank Chen." On
October 14, 2015, the Court granted the motion for class
certification, concluding that Plaintiffs had met the requirements
of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).

In his Order dated November 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/pIPciS from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar concluded that
the benefits to be awarded to the class fall within the range of
possible approval and that it would be more expensive and time-
consuming for the parties to litigate the case trough trial so
that resolution through settlement is appropriate.

Kevin Hart is represented by William Lewis Stern, Esq. --
wstern@mofo.com -- Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq. -- cvetesi@mofo.com
-- Elizabeth Gilmore Balassone, Esq. -- ebalassone@mofo.com -- and
Robert Travis Petraglia, Esq. -- rpetraglia@mofo.com -- MORRISON &
FOERSTER LLP

            -- and --

      Anna Margaret Rich, Esq.
      Gerald Andrew McIntyre, Esq.
      Kathryn Rose Lang, Esq.
      Trinh Phan, Esq.
      JUSTICE IN AGING
      1444 Eye Street
      NW Suite 1100
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202)289-6976

Carolyn W. Colvin is represented by:

      Michael Andrew Zee, Esq.
      UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
      450 Golden Gate Ave, Ste 7-5395
      San Francisco, CA 94102


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Must Defend Against "Sanchez" FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Robert Blakey of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) in the case captioned, JOANNA SANCHEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN LEE
JACKSON and UNIVERSAL FIDELITY, LP, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-
6144 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Joanna Sanchez (Plaintiff) alleges that Defendants John
Lee Jackson (Jackson) and Universal Fidelity, LP (Universal)
(collectively, Defendants) violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sections  1692, et seq., by
failing to provide a proper debt validation notice to Plaintiff.
On June 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a class action suit in the
Court. On August 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed her First Amended
Complaint. In her sole count, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA. Generally, Section
1692g(a) provides that "in either the initial communication with a
consumer in connection with the collection of a debt or another
written notice sent within five days of the first, a debt
collector must provide specific information to the consumer."
Plaintiff alleges that Jackson (and vicariously, Universal)
violated this provision by failing to provide an adequate debt
validation notice in conjunction with his May 9, 2016 letter.

On or about March 22, 2016, Universal sent a notice to Plaintiff
regarding her outstanding debt. In addition to its own collection
efforts, Universal also retained Jackson, an independent Texas
attorney, to assist in the collection of outstanding debts. On or
about May 9, 2016, Jackson sent a one-page, two-sided collection
letter to Plaintiff.

In the motion, Defendants counter that Jackson merely acted as an
agent "on behalf of" Universal, an assertion confirmed by
Jackson's letter.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 21, 2016
available at https://is.gd/YihXGX from Leagle.com, Judge Blakey
found that, as a matter of law, attorneys may qualify as "debt
collectors" under the FDCPA if they regularly engage in consumer-
debt-collection activity. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to
amend her operative complaint for the limited purpose of
incorporating Universal's March 22, 2016 notice to Plaintiff.

Joanna Sanchez is represented by Celetha Chatman, Esq. --
cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com -- and Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
-- mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com -- COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP,
LTD.

Universal Fidelity, LP, et al. are represented by Kenneth Philip
Ross, Esq. -- kross@crottylaw.com -- CROTTY & SCHILTZ, LLC --
Elchanan Engel, Esq. -- ee@nqgrg.com -- and Nathan D. Adler, Esq.
-- nda@nqgrg.com -- NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN, RUBIN & GIBBER, P.A.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stelmachers' Amended Complaint Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the first
amended complaint in the case captioned, PAUL M. STELMACHERS,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. VERIFONE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:14-CV-04912-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

On June 3, 2014, Plaintiff took a taxi cab ride in Las Vegas and
used his credit card to pay for the cab. Verifone's product was
used to receive Plaintiff's payment. Once the payment was
processed, Plaintiff "received" a "computer-generated receipt
displaying more than the last five (5) digits of Plaintiff's
credit card number." Plaintiff asserts the receipt violated Sec.
1681c(g) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, and
seeks to represent a class of individuals who received
electronically printed receipts from Verifone which displayed more
than the last five digits of the purchaser's credit or debit card
number. The court dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint on
December 7, 2015.

He filed the first amended complaint on December 30, 2015.
According to the FAC, Verifone "produces machines that accept
credit cards and debit cards in the course of transacting
business. Verifone also manages the machines after they have been
sold and programs its machines to produce receipts only to the
specifications of Verifone.

In the motion, though Verifone challenges the FAC for failure to
state a claim, the sufficiency of the FAC actually turns on a more
fundamental issue: Article III standing.

In his Order dated November 21, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/bt4MKS from Leagle.com, Judge Davila held that the
FAC neither establishes an injury that is concrete under the
teachings of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), nor
one that is "certainly impending."  The court concluded that
Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged standing under Article III.
The FAC will therefore be dismissed on that ground, but with leave
to amend so that Plaintiff may be provided the opportunity to
clarify his standing allegations in consideration of the foregoing
discussion.

The court permitted the Plaintiff to amend his complaint by
December 7, 2016.

Paul M. Stelmachers is represented by Christopher Phillip Taylor
Tourek, Esq. -- Christopher@classlawyers.com -- James Michael
Smith, Esq. -- jim@classlawyers.com -- and Phillip Andrew Bock,
Esq. -- phil@classlawyers.com -- BOCK & HATCH, LLC

VeriFone Systems, Inc. is represented by John George Papianou,
Esq. -- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN -- and Scott D.
Gattey, Esq. -- scott@gatteylaw.com  -- GATTEY LAW OFFICE

Brett Noble, Miscellaneous, is represented by:

      Chant Yedalian, Esq.
      CHANT & COMPANY
      1010 N Central Ave,
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Tel: (877)574-7100


VIKING RANGE: "Piemonte" Suit Over Defective Fridge Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martini of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Viking's motion to
dismiss the complaint in the case captioned, RONALD J. PIEMONTE,
SUZZANNE E. PIEMONTE, Plaintiffs, v. VIKING RANGE, LLC, et al.
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-03971 (WJM) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs filed the products liability action against Viking
Range, LLC (Viking). In November 2013, Plaintiffs filed a
Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey against, inter alia,
Viking, asserting claims for violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act (CFA) and the New Jersey Products Liability Act (PLA).
Named Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves in their individual
capacities, as well as on behalf of a proposed class of other New
Jersey residents who purchased Viking refrigerators.  The basis
for the Piemonte' individual claims was that they had purchased a
Viking refrigerator that had been recalled, were not notified of
the recall, and suffered injury when that refrigerator's door
detached on July 7, 2013.  They sought, inter alia, personal
injury damages.

In January 2014, Viking removed the action to the District Court.
In February 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint
without prejudice finding that Plaintiffs' CFA claim was subsumed
by the PLA because Plaintiffs had failed to identify any specific
representations made by Viking. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs'
PLA claim because it failed to satisfy the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). Plaintiffs subsequently filed an
amended Complaint, and moved for reconsideration of the Court's
dismissal of their first Complaint. In September 2015, the Court
entered an Opinion and Order denying reconsideration of its
February 2015 Opinion, and dismissing the amended Complaint with
prejudice because Plaintiffs had failed to cure the defects in
their original Complaint.

In May 2016, the Piemontes filed a new action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey against Viking.  In July 2016, Viking removed
the action to the Court.  Piemonte v. Viking Range, LLC., D.N.J.
No. 2:16cv-03971 (Piemonte II).

This time, the action was only filed on behalf of the Piemontes in
their individual capacities, and not on behalf of a putative
class. Plaintiffs claim that Suzanne Piemonte was injured when the
door on the Piemonte's Viking refrigerator detached due to its
defective door hinge. They raise claims under the PLA for the
personal injury damages they suffered due to the refrigerator door
detachment.

In the motion, Viking argues that the current action must be
dismissed on res judicata grounds.

Plaintiffs argue that res judicata does not apply because the
Court's September 2015 Order dismissed their PLA claim for failure
to satisfy the class action requirements of Rule 23(b), and not
because their individual claims failed on the merits.

In his Opinion dated November 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Qm4OgO from Leagle.com, Judge Martini found that the
Piemonte II is barred by res judicata because (1) Piemonte I was
dismissed with prejudice, which constitutes a final judgment on
the merits for purposes of res judicata; and (2) the action
involved the Piemontes' identical claims against Viking under the
PLA for damages resulting from their faulty refrigerator door.
Because Piemonte II is a "subsequent suit against the same
adversary Viking based on the same cause of action as [the cause
of action in Piemonte I," it is barred.

Ronald J. Piemonte, et al. are represented by Jessica Lynn
Mariconda, Esq. -- jmariconda@n-blaw.com -- and Linda Jean
Niedweske, Esq. -- lniedweske@n-blaw.com -- NIEDWESKE BARBER
HAGER, LLC

VIKING RANGE, LLC is represented by Edward J. Fanning, Jr., Esq. -
- efanning@mccarter.com -- and Zane Christian Riester, Esq. --
zriester@mccarter.com -- MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Has Go Signal to Recall 61,000 Cars in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Dowling, writing for The Courier Mail, reports that
Volkswagen has gained approval from the Federal Government to
commence recall work on 61,000 cars with software that can cheat
diesel emissions tests.

While recalls have already begun on up to 11 million VW cars
caught up in the "diesegate" scandal overseas -- and vehicles in
the US are being bought back in a landmark $20 billion settlement
-- affected models in Australia are among the last to be
addressed.

A statement from Volkswagen Australia says "software solutions"
are available for 35,000 vehicles immediately, the remainder will
be done next year.

This is in addition to the recall of 9000 Amarok diesel utes
issued earlier this year.

Affected vehicles will undergo a software update and some "minor"
mechanical changes at Volkswagen dealers free of charge.

The recall comes as Volkswagen Australia continues to face two
cases in the Federal Court.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has accused the
German car maker of "misleading conduct".

An open class action is being jointly undertaken by Bannister Law
and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers; even VW diesel owners who have not
signed up for the case will still receive a benefit if one is
awarded.

Volkswagen believes Australian customers are not entitled to
compensation because it claims there will be no adverse affect on
its vehicles once the upgrades are made.

"Our confidence in this solution is based on the experience of
thousands of Amarok owners in Australia and more than 1.7 million
customers internationally who have had the update implemented,"
Volkswagen Group Australia managing director Michael Bartsch said
in a media statement.

"Authorities in Europe conducted a review and certified that
following the update, the fuel figures and Co2 emissions
originally listed by the manufacturer were confirmed. Engine
performance, maximum torque and noise emissions were unaffected,"
he said.

What remains unclear is what were the true emissions of Volkswagen
diesel cars in Australia -- in normal driving conditions rather
than in a test lab -- before the recall upgrades were made.

In April 2016, Mr Bartsch, said Volkswagen had not breached any
local laws.

"There are no regulations in Australia or anywhere in the world
that requires us to meet real-world driving emissions tests," said
Mr Bartsch.

"The reality is that no manufacturer is required to provide
emissions data based on real-world driving performance."

Owners of affected vehicles will receive a letter from Volkswagen,
inviting them to make an appointment with their local dealer.

In the meantime, customers who remain unsure if their vehicle is
affected can enter their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) via a
link www.volkswagen.com.au, www.skoda.com.au and www.volkswagen-
commercial.com.au, or call 1800 504 076.

How VW was busted:

May 2014

West Virginia University and a couple of clean air campaigners --
Peter Mock and John German -- complete a real-world driving test
that found the toxic emissions in certain VW diesels were up to 35
times higher than what was allowed in the US at that time.  The
results are forwarded to the US Environmental Protection Agency,
VW is formally asked to explain the discrepancy.

December 2014

After initially claiming there must have been a glitch with the
diesel cars tested, Volkswagen recalls approximately 500,000
vehicles to address the emissions discrepancies.

May 2015

US authorities conduct follow-up tests on the recalled vehicles
and discover they are still belching out too many toxins. None of
VW's explanations for the discrepancy satisfy authorities.

June 2015

VW is warned their latest diesel cars will not be approved for
sale until the issue is resolved with the older cars. This is
believed to be the first time the US government has been forced to
use its powers to stop sales of vehicles that are already in
showrooms.

3 September 2015

VW admits to authorities it used software to sidestep US emissions
regulations.

18 September 2015

The EPA in the US makes its findings public, VW announces 486,000
cars in the US are affected.

22 September 2015

VW says the number of diesel cars with the cheat mode has climbed
to 11 million globally and includes other VW-owned brands such as
Audi and Skoda.


Volkswagen

Golf (2009-2013)

Polo (2009-2014)

Jetta (2010-2015)

Passat CC (2008-2012)

Volkswagen CC (2011-2015)

Passat (2008-2015)

Eos (2008-2014)

Tiguan (2008-2015)

Caddie (2010-2015)

Amarok (2011-2012)

Audi (certain versions of the following models)

A1 (current generation)

A3 (previous generation)

A4 (current generation)

A5 (current generation)

A6 (current generation)

Q5 (current generation 2.0 TDI)

TT (previous generation)

Skoda

Octavia (2009-2013)

Yeti (2011-2015)

Superb (2009-2015)


WAL-MART STORES: "Mars" Suit Moved from E.D. to W.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Thomas A Mars; City of Pontiac
General Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf
of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. and Michael T Duke, Case No. 4:16-mc-00015, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
(Fayetteville). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:16-mc-00106-TLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon.
Timothy L. Brooks.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., doing business as Walmart, is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery stores.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert D. Luskin, Esq.
          Kwame J. Manley, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          875 15th Street North West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 551 1700
          E-mail: kwamemanley@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Philip E. Kaplan, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & ANDERSON PLC
          111 Center St., 22nd Floor
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372 0800
          Facsimile: (501) 372 6453
          E-mail: pkaplan@williamsanderson.com

               - and -

          Laura M. Andracchio, Esq.
          Scott H. Saham, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: scotts@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey Culbertson, Esq.
          PATTON, TIDWELL & CULBERTSON, L.L.P.
          Post Office Box 5398
          Texarkana, TX 75505-5398
          Telephone: (903) 792 7080
          Facsimile: (903) 792 8233
          E-mail: gpc@texarkanalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jess L. Askew, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975 3000
          Facsimile: (501) 975 3001
          E-mail: jess.askew@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Teresa M. Wineland, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 W Capitol Ave., Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975 3000
          Facsimile: (501) 975 3001
          E-mail: teresa.wineland@kutakrock.com


WAL-MART: Settles LGBT Employees' Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Out In Jersey reports that a national campaign to change Walmart
into a more responsible employer toward LGBT employees announced a
settlement in a lawsuit.  Making Change at Walmart, along with
Pride at Work and UFCW OUTreach, a constituency group dedicated to
building mutual support between the UFCW's International, regions,
and locals and the LGBT community and their allies, released a
settlement agreement was reached in the Cote et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit accused Walmart of discrimination against employees
who were married to same-sex spouses by denying their spouses
health insurance benefits.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces 171 Actonel(R) Product Liability Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 171
cases and a potential defendant with respect to approximately 374
unfiled claims involving a total of approximately 554 plaintiffs
and potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's
bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege,
among other things, that Actonel(R) caused them to suffer
osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition
that involves severe loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or
atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have
been filed in either federal or state courts in the United States.
Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in these
litigations. In addition, Warner Chilcott is aware of four
purported product liability class actions that were brought
against Warner Chilcott in provincial courts in Canada alleging,
among other things, that Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the
proposed class members who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical
fractures or other side effects. It is expected that these
plaintiffs will seek class certification. Plaintiffs have
typically asked for unspecified monetary and injunctive relief, as
well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi
for certain Actonel claims pursuant to a collaboration agreement
relating to the two parties' co-promotion of the product in the
United States and other countries. In addition, Warner Chilcott is
also partially indemnified by the Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G")
for ONJ claims that were pending at the time Warner Chilcott
acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical business in October 2009. In
May and September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into two
settlement agreements that resolved a majority of the then-
existing ONJ-related claims which are subject to the acceptance by
the individual respective claimants.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner
Chilcott maintains product liability insurance against such cases.
However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Continues to Defend "Roberts" Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc., continues to defend itself
against the purported class action lawsuit captioned Raymond
Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc., according to the
Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 1,
2016.

On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of
contract and violations of the New York General Business Law. On
February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court, Sothern District of New York. On March 18,
2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that, as
a result of the temporary glitches in the Company's website and
app in November and December 2015, the Company has: (1) breached
its Subscription Agreement with its OnlinePlus members; and (2)
engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section
350 of the New York General Business Law. The plaintiff is seeking
unspecified actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as his
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2016. The
plaintiff filed his opposition papers on June 9, 2016 and the
Company filed its reply papers on June 23, 2016.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.

Weight Watchers International, Inc., is a Virginia corporation
with its principal executive offices in New York.  The Company's
"meetings" business refers to providing access to meetings to its
monthly commitment plan subscribers, "pay-as-you-go" members,
Total Access subscribers and other meetings members.  "Online"
refers to Weight Watchers Online, Weight Watchers OnlinePlus,
Personal Coaching and other digital subscription products.


WELLS FARGO: Wants 60 Plaintiffs to Submit Claims in Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Wells
Fargo, facing various lawsuits for improper sales practices, has
asked a Utah federal judge to force nearly 60 of 80 named
plaintiffs in one suit to bring their claims in arbitration.

Wells Fargo filed its motion to compel and a 16-page memorandum in
support in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah,
Central Division, Nov. 23.

The bank asked Judge Clark Waddoups to issue an order compelling
the 58 named plaintiffs in the putative class action, filed in
September, to submit their claims to binding arbitration and to
stay the resolution of its pending motion to dismiss -- and any
other litigation -- until the remaining 22 named plaintiffs
provide information "sufficient" for Wells Fargo to confirm their
identity and bring a motion to compel them to arbitrate their
claims as well.

"Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in this putative class
action names an unwieldy 80 representative plaintiffs pursuing 17
causes of action against Wells Fargo.  Plaintiffs concede,
however, that 'they entered into valid and enforceable agreements
with Defendants whereby Defendants promised to provide goods or
services to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and Plaintiffs and Class
Members agreed to pay for those goods or services, including
payment made with debit or credit cards,'" attorneys for Wells
Fargo wrote. "In these same agreements -- which Plaintiffs admit
are enforceable -- Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate any disputes
with Wells Fargo, including the claims they assert in this
lawsuit."

Wells Fargo noted, "Plaintiffs are judicially estopped from
arguing otherwise, as a party 'cannot rely on the contract, when
it works to their advantage, and repudiate it when it works to
their disadvantage.'"

The bank's attorneys pointed out that the plaintiffs' use of Wells
Fargo's banking services after being informed of the arbitration
agreement constitutes their acceptance of the terms of the
agreement.

Wells Fargo, in its motion, also pointed to another lawsuit,
brought against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, arguing the arbitration agreement must be
enforced.

The judge in that case, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Co., rejected
arguments against enforcing the parties' agreements to arbitrate.

In addition, Wells Fargo argues, the Federal Arbitration Act
requires that agreements to arbitrate be enforced.

"Plaintiffs must therefore arbitrate their claims and may not
pursue them in court, as they are attempting to do here,"
attorneys for the bank wrote.

Wells Fargo also asked that Waddoups stay further litigation
pending the completion of limited discovery by the bank to enable
it to move to compel arbitration with the remaining 22 named
plaintiffs.

"Plaintiffs should not be permitted to escape enforceable
arbitration agreements by their failure to either allege or
provide sufficient information to enable Wells Fargo to pursue its
right to arbitration," the bank's attorneys wrote.

In September, Wells Fargo reached agreements with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency and the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney regarding
allegations that some of its retail customers received products
and services they did not request.

Some Wells Fargo employees reportedly opened as many as 2 million
accounts without customers' knowledge or permission in order to
meet sales quotas.

Specifically, the bank agreed to pay a $100 million fine to the
CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund; a $35 million penalty to the
comptroller's office; $50 to the city and county of Los Angeles;
and $5 million in customer remediation.

According to the CFPB, the $100 million fine is the largest
penalty the bureau has ever imposed.

"The action should serve notice to the entire industry that
financial incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry
serious risks that can have serious legal consequences," CFPB
Director Richard Cordray said in a Sept. 8 statement.

A week later, three of the current named plaintiffs, all Utah
residents, filed a putative class action complaint alleging 10
claims. Soon after, 32 named plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint, alleging 17 claims.

But Wells Fargo argues its agreements are clear.

"The Consumer Account Agreements state that '[i]f you have a
dispute with the Bank, and you are not able to resolve the dispute
informally, you and the Bank agree that upon demand by either you
or the Bank, the dispute will be resolved through the arbitration
process as set forth in this part,'" it wrote in its motion.  "The
agreements then define 'dispute' as broadly as possible to include
any disagreement between the customer and the bank: 'A dispute is
any unresolved disagreement between you and the Bank.'"

The bank contends the plaintiffs' claims are "indisputably" an
unresolved agreement.

"Plaintiffs can hardly claim surprise that unauthorized activity
is covered when their Consumer and Business Account Agreements
explicitly contemplate disputes related to such activity.  Both
agreements have a section applying to 'unauthorized transactions,'
which include 'a missing signature, an unauthorized signature . .
. or otherwise a transaction that was not authorized by you.'"

California law firm Munger Tolles & Olson LLP and Utah firm Ray
Quinney & Nebeker PC are representing Wells Fargo in the action.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Awaits Decision on Bid to Toss Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants await ruling on their motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' remaining claims in the antitrust lawsuit brought on
behalf of indirect purchasers of secure digital cards, Western
Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On March 15, 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk
Corporation, SD-3C, Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation
of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a
nationwide class of indirect purchasers of Secure Digital ("SD")
cards. The complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust laws
and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, as well as
common law claims. The complaint seeks damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, and fees and costs. The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs
associated with manufacturing SD(TM) cards, which in turn
allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards.
The allegations are similar to and incorporate allegations in
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al.,
described.

On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.
On May 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings. On February 3, 2015,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District
Court. On September 30, 2015, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On November 4,
2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On November
25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
federal law claims.

On October 3, 2016, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion with leave to amend. On October 21, 2016, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining claims.
Discovery is presently stayed until after completion of the
pleading stage.

The Company says it intends to defend itself vigorously in this
matter.

Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer and
provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the
needs of the information technology industry and the
infrastructure that enables the storage of data.  The Company also
generates license and royalty revenue related to its intellectual
property.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation awaits decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities litigation involving a subsidiary, according
to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

Beginning on March 30, 2015, SanDisk Corporation and two officers,
Sanjay Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. Two complaints are
allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk's
securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, and one is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's
securities between April 16, 2014 and April 15, 2015. The
complaints generally allege violations of federal securities laws
arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, damages and fees and costs. On July 9, 2015,
the Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset
Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead
plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2015. On
January 22, 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend.
On February 22, 2016, the court issued an order appointing as new
lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut
Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension,
Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund (collectively, the
"Institutional Investor Group"). On March 23, 2016, the
Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 29, 2016. On
June 24, 2016, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
amended complaint with leave to amend. On July 15, 2016, the
Institutional Investor Group filed a further amended complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on August 19, 2016.

The Company says it intends to defend itself vigorously in this
matter.

Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer and
provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the
needs of the information technology industry and the
infrastructure that enables the storage of data.  The Company also
generates license and royalty revenue related to its intellectual
property.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Ritz Camera's Appeal Pending in Federal Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from summary judgment entered in the
lawsuit initiated by Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, remains pending,
according to Western Digital Corporation's November 8, 2016, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk
Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleging that SanDisk
violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory
products sold by SanDisk and SanDisk-controlled joint ventures
from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleged that
SanDisk created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently
obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by
allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. The
complaint sought damages, injunctive relief, and fees and costs.
On February 24, 2011, the District Court granted in part SanDisk's
motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as
a defendant.

Between 2013 and 2014, the District Court granted Ritz's motion to
substitute in as named plaintiff Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7
Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, and the Trustee's motions
to add as named plaintiffs CPM Electronics Inc., E.S.E.
Electronics, Inc. and Mflash, Inc. On May 14, 2015, the District
Court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On April 29, 2016, the court granted SanDisk's motion for summary
judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk's favor as to all of the
plaintiffs' claims.  On May 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. The appeal is currently pending.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer and
provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the
needs of the information technology industry and the
infrastructure that enables the storage of data.  The Company also
generates license and royalty revenue related to its intellectual
property.


* 9 Cases Started Since French Class Action Law Implementation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Albertini, Esq. -- malbertini@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on October 1, 2016,
the French consumer class action celebrated two years of
existence.  The initial assessment is rather reassuring for
companies, although media coverage from the very beginning has
been worrying and illustrates a cynical tendency that must be
addressed.

Functioning of the class action

To recap, a class action can only be exercised by one of 15
nationally certified consumer associations.  It may be brought
against any professional in breach of their legal or contractual
obligations "upon the sale of goods or the supply of services."

All business-to-consumer businesses are thus theoretically likely
to incur liability.  In practice, the scope of action is limited
in two ways.  First, consumers must be in a similar or identical
situation.  Second, only damage to property resulting from the
material damage can be repaired.

Class action proceedings involve two phases.  The first phase
results in a judgment ruling on the liability of the professional
and defines the consumer group concerned, the conditions governing
compensation, and the implementation of advertising measures
following exhaustion of remedies.  The second phase is that of
compensation from the professional to the consumers via the
association.  It may be conducted through amiable settlement or
litigation.  It is solely during this second phase that the
consumers seeking compensation must make themselves known.

Assessment of the actions initiated

While some feared a surge in class actions from October 1, 2014,
in reality only nine proceedings have been started.  One of them
was resolved by a settlement agreement and only one judgment was
rendered, which went against the consumer association.

The Court held that the four individual cases submitted were not
conclusive enough and did not establish a shortcoming attributable
to the professional.  Emphasizing once again the need for the
associations to submit evidence proving the alleged violation by
the professional is salutary.

The other seven cases are still ongoing.

A common feature of all the cases is the heavy media coverage
surrounding their launch.  The consumer associations communicate
extensively with the media to gain maximum coverage for their
actions.

Media pressure

This heavy media coverage is likely to damage the image and the
reputation of the company concerned, or even its share price.  It
is all the more concerning since class action proceedings
themselves provide for publicity measures.  These are decided by
the judge once the decision regarding professional liability is
final.

In the actions introduced so far, the companies were broadly
exposed to media pressure when the action was brought, although to
date, none of the proceedings have reached the stage of
implementing the advertising measures provided under the Consumer
Code.  When this occurs, there will undoubtedly be tremendous
media exposure once again, but with a major difference: a final
judgment shall have ruled that the professional was liable.

In light of the length and complexity of class action proceedings,
the consumer associations have realised that media pressure is a
powerful weapon.  They are not alone.  We have seen over the past
two years a growing number of announcements of 'group action' or
'collective action' by people who are not qualified to lead a true
class action, but who intentionally use ambiguous terminology.

Advice for companies

When managing their risks in such a context, companies are well
advised to further develop their monitoring processes.  Upstream,
they should also develop preventive measures to secure the sale
process and the quality of their products and services.

Downstream, corrective measures are needed to maintain their
customer relationships.  Finally, the use of mediation, either
through internal mediators or industry federation mediators, may
enable companies to effectively manage, upstream, a large number
of situations potentially leading to a class action.


* Commercial Websites Must Comply with Accessibility Guidelines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Quinlan, writing for B2C, reports that some of the next major
hurdles for web developers in the near future won't be exclusive
to coming up with the next cutting-edge design or transcendent
functional experience, but making sure that the digital
equivalents of handrails and wheelchair ramps are properly
installed.  With 1 out of 5 Americans living with a disability
along with a significant portion of the population's web users
getting older, businesses will need to assess whether their
offerings are adequately within the reach of consumers with
accessibility needs. And while having an accessible website could
make for a strong business case, adherence to accessibility may
soon be the official law of the web.

To understand the current legality, let's rewind for a little
historical context.  The need for commercial websites to meet
accessibility guidelines came about following a 2006 lawsuit
against the discount retailer Target that was filed by The
National Federation of the Blind, or NFB.  The lawsuit alleged
that Target's website violated The Americans with Disabilities act
(ADA) in that by not being accessible, the retailer was
discriminating against people with disabilities in "places of
public accommodation."  Prior to this, ADA mandates did not extend
to accessibility requirements of websites.  That changed when a
federal judge shot down Target's motion to dismiss the case,
stating aspects of the website's services that are "sufficiently
integrated with those of physical Target Stores are covered by the
ADA's non-discrimination provisions".

In 2008, Target ultimately settled the class action lawsuit and
agreed to pay damages of $6 million in addition to the $3.7
million awarded to the NFB for attorney's fees and costs.  To add,
Target never published what their own legal fees amounted to.

Since the settlement, numerous lawsuits have been filed in Federal
Court against commercial websites that don't adhere to
accessibility standards.  This includes well-known brands such as
Ace Hardware, JCPenny, and Bed Bath & Beyond.  Though precise
statistics are not available, two separate studies have estimated
that at least 61 website lawsuits have gone to federal court since
January 2015 while hundreds of demand letters have been sent to
website operators by plaintiff firms: that's all in the absence of
any definitive requirements on website accessibility from the
government.  However, those requirements along with their window
for enactment appear to be just beyond the horizon.

According to The Department of Justice's Supplemental advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (SANPRM), entities (aka websites)
will have two years after the publication of their final ruling to
make their websites accessible.  Though there is no concrete date
for when a ruling will be set forth, the DOJ ceased the reception
of any further public comment on questions outlined in the SANPRM
as of Friday, October 7th, 2016.

So what's likely to be required? The SANPRM strongly asserts that
the second iteration of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG 2.0 for short) will be the intended accessibility guideline
for websites to meet.  WCAG 2.0's guidelines are extremely robust
as they aim to make web content more accessible to users with or
without disabilities and is the required standard for government
sites that currently require accessibility.  The standards are
also extremely daunting and some can be open to interpretation, so
you'll need to define an approach for how you'll tackle
implementation for your website.

Start a plan

For those who are looking to build a brand new website, it's
important to strategize how you'll approach integrating
accessibility standards in your web build.  Starting from scratch
means you're awarded the chance to account for accessibility in
your design process instead of in development -- this can save
your team considerable amount time and effort.

For businesses that are content with their existing website
content an accessibility audit should be your first step.  An
accessibility audit could easily set you back anywhere from $10k
to $50k.  That price tag could be off-putting at first, but
consider the alternative of non-action could open your company to
the risk of a lawsuit that would be far more costly.

Whether outlining the accessibility features you intend to
implement in your new web build or the fixes you're aiming to do
on your current site, you'll want to prioritize the standards
you're addressing on your website since each standard requires a
fair amount of time and effort.  To reduce the burden of having to
ramp up every team member on the exhausting documentation, you may
find it more beneficial to identify a team member to "own"
accessibility compliance and who can then delegate related tasks.
They'll need to have some foundational knowledge of both web
design as well as a firm understanding website in question. Here
is a small sample of the compliance standards that they'll need to
consider:

Keyboard access -- Any interaction a user can perform using a
mouse needs to also be accessible through the keyboard as well.
This can take a substantial amount of programming if your site
relies heavily on mouse interaction by design.

Text alternatives -- Images that convey any important information
to the users need to have an alternative way of conveying the same
information to users that have a visual impairment.  This is done
through the use of alternative (alt) text.

Screen readers -- Screen readers should not only read text that
appears on a screen, but should give indications to users as to
how they should interact with functional content or when content
has changed.  For instance, a drop-down menu needs to convey to
screen reader users that it is either expanded or collapsed.

Color and contrast -- If the contrast between a text color and its
background color is not high enough, some users will have a hard
time reading the content. You can use a tool like this to check
contrast.

Making your website compliant to accessibility standards can be a
massive undertaking.  It will require more time from your team,
which can incur a greater financial burden in the short term.
Laying this groundwork, though, can make your website more usable
for all your users, and by doing so you alleviate potential legal
ramifications.  But most importantly, you're promoting a culture
of inclusion through the portal that your customers will know you
by, and their experience will be better for it regardless of their
abilities.


* Corporate General Counsels Part of Fraudulent Group
-----------------------------------------------------
Greta Guest, writing for Phys.org, reports that general counsels
for corporations are well-versed in the law and should be able to
detect and stop fraud, not profit from stock sales utilizing their
fraud-related insider information.

Researchers from the University of Michigan zeroed in on the
potential reasons that corporate counsels are failing to report
and prevent corporate crime.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was an answer to rampant corporate
fraud involving companies such as Enron, Worldcom and Tyco.  The
act required corporate attorneys to report any suspicion of
violation to top executives and board of directors.

"More than any other executives in the corporation, corporate
attorneys are expected to understand potential violations of law,"
said Nejat Seyhun, finance professor at U-M's Ross School of
Business.  "They are expected to use their legal expertise to
advise, intervene and stop wrongdoing."

Seyhun and S. Burcu Avci, a research scholar, analyzed insider
trading activities of top executives, general counsels and other
officials listed in Securities Class Action database.  Looking at
cases filed in federal court from 1996-2014, they compared those
with insider trading data and found that general counsels were
more aggressive sellers of company stock than other executives.
General counsels increased their sales of stock during the class
action period by 63 percent, which indicates that they were aware
of the overvaluation of their common stock due to the fraud and
were acting proactively to reduce their potential losses by
reducing their holdings.

The fraudulent activity costs shareholders billions. The average
class action settles for $170 million, they found. Given this, the
estimated range of damages caused by the alleged fraud is between
$6 billion and $30 billion.

"Our evidence shows that general counsels are part of the
fraudulent group," Seyhun said.  "They are heavy sellers of their
own firm's stocks and profit abnormally by avoiding the stock
price declines upon revelation of the fraud at the end of the
class action period."


* Few Class Action Nonprofits in Israel Use Special Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Hadar Kane, writing for Haaretz, reports that they are supposed to
help ordinary consumers wage battle against big companies, but the
nonprofit organizations authorized to help the little guy via
class action lawsuits, petitions to the Antitrust Authority and
the courts are more like poodles than watchdogs.

Information obtained by TheMarker and Hatzlacha -- The Movement
for the Promotion of a Fair Society and Economy found that among
scores of organizations that applied for the status to represent
consumers, only 11 were approved.  And of those 11, only a few
actually used their special status the last three years.
Moreover, the Justice Ministry, which approves groups for the
special status, admitted it did very little to ensure those groups
were acting.

Under a directive issued by the attorney general, the ministry is
entitled to grant groups a special status in front of the courts
and regulatory authorities as representatives of the general
public.  That includes the right to file lawsuits or friend-of-
the-court briefs.  The authorizations are given for three years
after an application is reviewed by a joint team from the Justice
and Economy Ministries.

Of the 11 approved organizations, for example, Kav LaOved has
participated in just three class actions lawsuits since it was
granted the special status four years ago.  The Movement for
Quality Government in Israel has filed no suits, nor has the group
Transport Today & Tomorrow or the Histadrut [labor federation]
Consumer Authority.

Only two of the 11 have been active.  One is Hatzlacha itself,
which has filed two class action suits on behalf of consumers, two
petitions with the Israel Securities Authority and three with the
Antitrust Authority since it was approved to do so a year ago.

The only other active organization is the Israel Consumer Council,
which has filed eight class action suits and eight friend-of-the-
court briefs.  However, that covers the period going back to 2010;
the council is also fortunate to have an annual budget of more
than 10 million shekels ($2.6 million) and a staff of 50.

Many of the organizations do a lot more than file lawsuits and
petition to regulatory agencies and often don't need to go to
court to achieve their goals.  For instance, the Association of
the Deaf in Israel, which advocates access for deaf people, said
it rarely needs to go to court.

"When the organization encounters discrimination or lack of
access, it sends warning letters through its counsel that make it
clear that if the problem isn't solved we will file a lawsuit.
Usually, the letters are enough to achieve the goal," the
association said.

Orfa Levy, a legal adviser to Emun Hatzibur, a nonprofit that
doesn't enjoy the special status, said nonprofit groups that want
to help level the playing field for consumers fighting big
organizations are often handicapped themselves.

"It's very important that nonprofits are involved, especially vis-
a-vis big businesses and the authorities.  The problem is the
process -- for them to take part in the relevant legal proceedings
in their areas," she said.

Michael Bach, an attorney who specializes in class action
lawsuits, said the problem is that the law had been amended more
recently to allow any organization to file a class action suit.
"In the same vein, every organization should be allowed to
represent consumers.  The minute everyone is authorized, rather
than just an exclusive club, everything will be better," he said.
The Justice Ministry said the organizations granted the status
were supposed to file an annual report on their activities, but
admitted that it had never received any.





                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *